FAO No.941 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.941 of 2005 Date of Decision. 06.10.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Pritu s/o Sh. Dani Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 2. FAO No.5292 of 2004 Pritu s/o Sh. Dani Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Rajpal son of Sh. Barkat Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the insurance company. 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 two appeals arise out of the same accident, one at the instance of the insurer in FAO No.941 of 2005 on the issue of quantum while the claimants have applied for enhancement in appeal in FAO FAO No.941 of 2005 -2- No.5292 of 2004. The deceased was a woman, said to be aged 52 years and the claimants were the husband and the major children. The Tribunal took her value of services as housewife at Rs.2400/- per month, adopted a deduction of 1/3rd and took the contribution to the family to be Rs.1600/- per month. It adopted a multiplier of 8 and provided for compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would plead that the age given in the petition could not have been correct, for in the cross-examination of the husband, he reasoned that the marriage between him and the deceased took place 2 years "ahead of partition." According to him, therefore, she must have been around 70 years at the time when the accident took place in 2000. He would also point out that all the children were majors and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in awarding compensation to the major children as well. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that reference by the husband that the marriage took place two years ahead of partition must be understood as two years after the partition. The counsel would also state that post-mortem certificate has given his age as 52 years and that must alone be taken. The determination of age assumes significance only because the choice of multiplier would depend on the same. I am prepared to concede to a situation in favour of the claimants that the reference to two years ahead of partition must be taken as two years after the partition, in which case, if the marriage had taken place in the year 1949 and assuming that even in those days, the marriage had taken place even FAO No.941 of 2005 -3- when the spouse was an infant, who had not attained even puberty. I would take that she must have been born not later than 1939. The accident took place in the year 2000 and therefore, I will take his age to be 61 years. Learned counsel refers to a decision of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Piara Singh and others Vs. Satpal Kumar and others 2007(2) PLR 143 where this Court adopted value of services of a housewife at Rs.36,000/- per annum. If the income of householder is to be taken as Rs.3,000/- and I would have thought of applying half the amount as going for her income and taken the contribution to the husband as half for it likens a situation of contribution to a family in the case of a bachelor, for the other children could not be said to be dependents on the mother or availing the services of the mother except for her filial affection but I feel bound by the decision of the Division Bench and I would adopt same formula of what was set down through the judgment in Piara Singh's case (supra) and determine the compensation at Rs.2,16,000/- in the manner that has been done by this Court. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,55,000/- and it shall stand increased to Rs.2,16,000/- as found in the above judgment. The increase over what has been awarded by the Tribunal already shall carry interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The cross appeal for enhancement is allowed to the above extent and the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 06, 2010 Pankaj*