IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7328 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:30.03.2011 Smt. Satbir Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Rawel Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Mridula Seth, Advocate, for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. ---- 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 for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male, aged 36 years. He was said to be an owner of an auto-rickshaw and ferry children to school and earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal took the income to be Rs.5,000/- and considering the fact that he was supporting a large family of his wife, three children and parents, provided for 1/5th deduction and took the contribution to the family at Rs.4,000/- per month. It adopted a multiplier of 16 and assessed the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- that included Rs.12,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and for funeral expenses. FAO No.7328 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The learned counsel assails the award saying that the Tribunal must have taken the income as spoken to by the wife and also provided for a higher multiplier. The Tribunal, in this case, actually assessed the compensation taking a higher value for multiplier for the age of the person at 36 and has also provided for a lesser sum for personal expenses at 1/5th than what has been suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121 . If the scales of compensation as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were to be taken, the Tribunal ought to have provided for 1/4th deduction and adopted a multiplier of 15. If the contention of the counsel is that the income was assessed low, it is more than off-set by the fact that the Tribunal had adopted a higher contribution to the family and also a higher multiplier. The overall compensation determined by the Tribunal conforms to what is just and equitable under the said circumstances. I find no scope for enhancement. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.03.2011 sanjeev