FAO No.696 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.696 of 2011
Date of Decision. 27.04.2011
Raj Rani wife of Diwan Chand @ Diwan Singh and another
......Appellants
Versus
Ram Phool Singh son of Sh. Daya Sukh and others
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate
for the appellant.
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. Delay is condoned.
2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation
awarded to the parents of deceased. The deceased was said to be
running a business in grocery shop and said to be earning Rs.20,000/-
per month. The deceased was aged 22 years. The claimants did not
give any proof regarding their age. Again there was also no proof
regarding the income of the deceased when admittedly he was not an
income tax assessee. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at
Rs.4,000/-, made a deduction of 50% for personal expenses and adopted
a multiplier of 13 and provided a compensation of Rs.3,22,000/-.
3. The learned counsel states that 50% deduction should not have
been made and 1/3rd deduction must have been given. It is also
FAO No.696 of 2011 -2-
contended that choice of multiplier was erroneous, for the mother was
aged less than 45 years of age. The Tribunal in the absence of any proof
relating to the age of the parents has taken that the parents must have
been in the age group of 45-50 years and took the multiplier suitable to
the age of the parents. Deduction taken of one half for a person and
application of multiplier suitable to the age of the parents conforms to
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.
DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance
Company Ltd. JT 2010(13) SC 103 respectively.
4. The overall compensation determined at Rs.3,22,000/-, in my
view, under such circumstances is appropriate and just and there is no
scope for interference. The award is confirmed and the appeal is
dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
April 27, 2011
Pankaj*