FAO No. 1656 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1656 of 2011 Date of decision June 1, 2011 Smt. Vinod Bala and others ....... Appellants Versus Surinder Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is against the award determining a compensation of `13,72,240/- for death of a person who was aged 34 years. The grievance of the appellant is that although the employer gave evidence that the deceased was likely to get an increase in salary four months later, the prospect of increase was not provided for. We have not come by sure dispensation yet through any pronouncement or legislative change to make a provision for increase in every case where a death results through a motor accident and the salary is shown as a particular amount at the time of his death. Where constitutional guarantees provide for security of service under Article 311 of the Constitution and provision for recisions of salary in civil services come through Pay Commission recommendations a different manner of approach would be justified for FAO No. 1656 of 2011 2 private employment. It has been the current practice after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Susamma Thomas Vs.Kerala State Transport Corporation and still later in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 where to persons in government service, there are always provisions made for prospect of future increase. I do not think that there was any error in the Tribunal rejecting a plea for making a prospect for increase for future while determining the multiplicand for a private employment. Learned counsel states that even the choice of multiplier was not properly done. He was aged 34 years and the Tribunal has taken the multiplier at 16 in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Vermas'case (supra). Higher multiplier suggested in Schedule-II could be directed where the annual income of the deceased is itself less than `40,000/-. The over all compensation made by the Tribunal accords with law and I find no reason to interfere with the same. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 1, 2011 archana