FAO No.1028 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1028 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: February 4, 2011 MASTAN CHAND & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS BILLU & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. AKASHDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2. MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE AND MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for death of a Peon in Oriental Bank who was said to be earning `1550/-. The claimants were the parents aged 58 and 50 and minor sister. The Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency at `300/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 to determined a compensation of `60,000/-. 2. I will adopt a formula as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121, as later interpreted in Shakti Devi vs. United India Insurance Company reported as JT 2010 SC 103, as far as the claim is with reference to the parents and the choice of multiplier. In the presence of the parents it will be difficult to FAO No.1028 of 1990 -2- accommodate the claim of a sister as a dependent, for, the parents are bound to support the daughter. The calculation of compensation is tabulated below:- Fatal Accidents Age: 27 Occupation Claimants Parents, minor sister Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Annual Income 1550 1550 2. Add % of increase 50% 2325 3. Deduction (1/2,1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 50% 4. Multiplicand 300 x 12 1162.50 5. Multiplier 16 13 6. Loss of Dependence 181350 7. Medical Expenses 8. Loss of Consortium 9. Loss to Estate 2500 10. Funeral Expenses 2000 Total 60,000/- 1,85,850/- 3. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount will be distributed between the parents equally. 4. The liability amongst the respondents shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 6. The insurance company makes a plea regarding restriction of liability by pointing out that there was such a plea taken before the Tribunal, but, the Tribunal, however, did not consider the same having regard to the fact that the amount determined as compensation payable itself was only 60,000/-. I do not have the benefit of the terms of the policy for me to make FAO No.1028 of 1990 -3- a re-determination with reference to the liability of the insurance and, therefore, will hold the entire amount as payable. February 4, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE