FAO No.1369 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1369 of 2000 Date of Decision. 06.09.2010 Meena Rani wd/o Ram Niwas and others ......Appellants Versus Darshan Singh son of Mohinder Singh Ramdasia and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.M. Suri, 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 appeal had been tagged on along with FAO Nos.1211 and 1212 of 2000, the appeals which have been filed by the insurance company denying liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. I have today passed an order affording to the insurer an opportunity to summon the records. Even if the driving licence were not true, the liability to satisfy the claim of the claimants cannot be denied and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant would contend that his case need not be deferred and he would seek for delinking the case from the other cases. I accede to the request and delink the case from the other two cases and take up the case for enhancement of compensation FAO No.1369 of 2000 -2- independently. 2. The appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement for death of a person, who was aged 32 years and who was engaged in the business of timber. The wife had spoken about his business and had stated that her husband was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The witness was also examined, who said that he was dealing with the deceased in the timber business and knew that he was earning sufficiently to the extent of about Rs.10,000/-. With no document available, the Tribunal took the income to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel would fervently plead that the income must be taken as Rs.10,000/- per month. He would also contend that the Tribunal did not provide for any of the conventional heads of claims for compensation. Here is a case where the deceased was a graduate and he had left behind a wife and three minor children and a mother. For a person, who had to support a large family, I would assume that he was earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. Having regard to the fact that there were five dependents, I would provide a deduction of 1/5th from his own income and take the contribution to the family at Rs.2400/- per month. The annual dependence for the family, I would, therefore, take to be Rs.28,800/-. Adopting the multiplier in the manner provided in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121, I would take 16 to be the multiplier and the amount of compensation that would become payable, would be Rs.4,60,800/-. I would take a further amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to a young widow and provide for Rs.5,000/- for each one of the FAO No.1369 of 2000 -3- minor children that would take the amount to be Rs.4,85,800/- and I would add the conventional heads for loss of estate and the funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.14,200/- to round it off as Rs.5,00,000/-. The amount in excess of what was already awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. As regards the interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest @12% only from the date of the award till the date of payment and denied to the claimants interest from the date of the petition on the grounds that the claimants had delayed the disposal of the petition for nearly one year and more without producing evidence. I would not want to join issue for denial of interest, which the Tribunal observed on the ground that the claimants were themselves responsible for the delay. The interest @12% would perhaps compensate for what was otherwise denied to the claimant when at the relevant point of time, the appropriate interest would have been 9% and still there have been instances when 7.5% interest has been awarded. I would retain the provision for interest in the manner that was already awarded by the Tribunal and would not make any interference with reference to the same. 4. The claim for enhancement is allowed in the manner referred to above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 06, 2010 Pankaj*