Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Parkash Kaur Wife Of Shri Dalbir ... vs Nishan Singh Son Of Sh. Avtar Singh And ... on 4 February, 2011
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.619 of 1992 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.619 of 1992
Date of Decision. 04.02.2011
Smt. Parkash Kaur wife of Shri Dalbir Singh and another......Appellants
Versus
Nishan Singh son of Sh. Avtar Singh and others .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5.
Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
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 is for enhancement of compensation for death of 25 years old person, who was a driver in a truck. The evidence by employer was that he used to pay Rs.1200/- per month and also pay Rs.30/- per day as TA/DA on days when he was on outstation duty. I am prepared to take all the 30 days as though he was on outstation duty and will take the average salary at Rs.2100/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.1200/-, made a deduction of 50%, took the extent of dependence at Rs.600/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 where the father was stated to be 65 years of age. Amongst the claimants there was a minor brother. In the presence of the parents, there is no FAO No.619 of 1992 -2- likelihood of the minor brother being treated as a dependent. The overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.1,15,000/-.
2. If the income of the deceased were to be taken as Rs.2100/- and 50% deduction were to be applied and a choice of multiplier were to be taken depending on the age of the parents then the amount of compensation determined already will be even more than what would have obtained now if a multiplier of 9 were to be adopted. If also an additional amount of Rs.2500/- were to be provided for funeral expenses even then the amount cannot be larger than what was already awarded by the Tribunal.
3. I find no scope for interference. The appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 04, 2011 Pankaj*