FAO No.6196 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6196 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 02.05.2011 Anita Rani widow of late Sh. Narinder Mohan and others ......Appellants Versus M/s Allied Sales Agency, WZ-50, Sri Nagar Shakur Basi, Delhi (owner of truck No.HR-38-A-3882) and others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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) C.M. No.10675-CII of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 28.03.2011 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Application is allowed. FAO No.6196 of 2010 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a person, who was aged 40 years plus. He was said to be a driver earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof or evidence of a person, who had paid salary, the Tribunal took the income to be Rs.3,000/- and taking the age to be above 40, applied a multiplier of 15. Learned counsel states that he was FAO No.6196 of 2010 (O&M) -2- less than 40 years of age and the multiplier of 16 must have been adopted. I do not find a justification for such an inference. If the averment in the petition was that he was 40 years of age and the Tribunal while taking note of the fact that the person must have been more than 40 years of age, adopted a multiplier of 15, I do not find any reason to suspect that he was less than 40 years of age in the absence of any specific documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal to assess the age correctly. Even the argument that the Tribunal must have taken income of the deceased as stated by the petitioners cannot be accepted. Taking Rs.3000/- as income of the deceased by the Tribunal, in my view, is not erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that deduction of personal expenses to the extent of 1/4th was made when it should have been 1/5th. The deduction of 1/4th for a family containing five dependents, conforms to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. 4. As regards the choice of multiplier as well as multiplicand, the Tribunal assessed the correct values. I do not find any scope for enhancement. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 02, 2011 Pankaj*