FAO No.2731 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2731 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 04.04.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala through its Managing Director (owner of bus No.PB-11E-9633) ......Appellant Versus Harpal Kaur aged 34 years wife of late Ashok Kumar and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the appellant. 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) 1. The appeal is on the issue of quantum in case where the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 to a T as regards the choice of multiplier and provision for future increase etc. The only distinction which the leaned counsel wants to make out of the formula adopted by the Tribunal is that in this case retirement age was 58 years, while the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) was referring to a case where the retirement age was 60. Both as regards the prospect of increase or as regards the multiplier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in Sarla Verma (supra) that there needs to be a uniformity in approach by various Courts and has delivered the judgment after considering several divergent views arising out of the decisions of various Courts FAO No.2731 of 2011 (O&M) -2- including the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court themselves. While suggesting a prospect for increase at 50% for persons who were in the age group of 30 to 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was invariably prospect of the salary increasing at least twofold by a person reaching by the time of age of superannuation. That cannot alter merely by the fact that the person instead of retiring at 60 if he has retired at 58 years, the income he would have earned could not have been taken as possible of increase at least two times the salary on his death. 2. I reject this contention and affirm the award. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 04, 2011 Pankaj*