FAO No.2002 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2002 of 1998 Date of Decision. 30.06.2010 Sukhwinder Kaur wd/o Kulwant Singh s/o Tirlok Singh (widow of the deceased) and another ........Appellants Versus Iqbal Singh s/o Santa Singh-Jat Sikh Ward No.5, Gurunanak Nagar, Khairpur, Sirsa (driver of canter No.HR-20/0153) and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents. 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 claim for enhancement is made on the basis that the amount of Rs.3,07,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. While rejecting the plea that the deceased was doing patty work in milk dairy and he was an Ayurvedic Practitioner, the Tribunal assumed the salary to be Rs.2400/- and provided for a monthly dependency of Rs.1600/-. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and arrived at the above said compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant namely the claimants would contend that for a person, who was aged 25 years, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 18 and the award FAO No.2002 of 1998 -2- passed without making provision for the conventional heads such as loss of consortium for the wife, loss due to love and affection, funeral expenses and transport vehicle was grossly low. I find from the evidence that there had been no proof of income and the assessment of the Tribunal that at the relevant time, the income must have been taken as Rs.2400/- has no basis. If the statutory minimum were to be assumed, the actual income has to be taken as Rs.15000/- and after making provision for personal expenses, the contribution to the family could have been Rs.1,000/-. Even if we apply 18 multiplier and provide for of the conventional heads of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- for transport, the amount that would total up would still be less than what has been already awarded by the Tribunal. I do not think that there is a case made for an enhancement. 3. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The claimants shall be at liberty to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for withdrawal of the amount in accordance with law. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 30, 2010 Pankaj*