FAO No.2485 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2485 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 28.03.2011 Chola Mandalam Insurance Company, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Sardaro wife of late Buta Ram and others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company which had the benefit of defence under Section 170 is on appeal on the issue of quantum. 2. The deceased was said to be engaged in the sale and purchase of buffaloes and was also running dairy farm. The evidence was that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.5,000/- and proceeded to assess the compensation for a claim made at the instance of his widow, two daughters and one son. 3. Learned counsel states that in the absence of any documentary evidence relating to his income, the Court ought not to have taken more than what is provided as minimum wages applicable in the State, which is Rs.3200/- and that the assessment of income at Rs.5,000/- is high. I will discard this contention, for the deceased was not a young person, who was tottering for job but was a middle aged person, who had FAO No.2485 of 2011 (O&M) -2- brought up two daughters and one son. For a person to earn Rs.5,000/- in village in dairy business and in the sale and purchase of buffaloes cannot be said to be too high. The estimation made by the Tribunal is appropriate and just and I will not find any reason for interference. 4. As regards the age, there were different documents bringing in different estimations of age. As per the evidence of 1st claimant, he was aged 47 years. In the post-mortem report his age had been recorded as 60 and in the police inquest report, the age had been recorded as 50. The 1st claimant had given evidence that she had been married with the deceased 40 years back when she was aged 16 or 17. The Learned counsel would, therefore, want the Court to take the age to be close to 60. With varying versions about the age, the Tribunal took the age to be around 50 and applied a multiplier of 11. 11 multiplier is suggested in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 for persons aged 51 to 55. By adopting a multiplier for a modest income of Rs.5,000/-, after making a deduction for personal expenses, I will not find the assessment, which has been made by the Tribunal at Rs.5,20,000/- that includes all conventional heads to be very high. In my view, the compensation is just and equitable and would not require any interference in appeal. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 28, 2011 Pankaj*