Surinder Kumar And Anr. vs Tajinder Kaur And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 226 Del

JUDGMENT

M.C. Jain, J.

(1) ADMIT.

(2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3) We have perused the award of the Tribunal and the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge did not interfere in the award of compensation. It may be stated that Counsel for the appellant confines this appeal to the question of compensation only and gives up the issue relating tonegligence.

(4) The only issue that requires consideration is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side. According to the Counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal was wrong in adopting the multiplier as 40 and the Courts below are also wrong in taking Rs. 1000.00 as the monthly income of the deceased Harminder Singh.

(5) We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for theappellant. However, we find ourselves unable to agree with the same. The deceased Harminder Singh was aged about 30 years on the date of accident.He was survived by four minor children and his mother. The only evidence on the record which is to be believed, is that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 1000.00 and was spending a sum of Rs. 250.00 on himself and the rest on his family.

(6) So far as the question of multiplier is concerned, we do not agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that a higher multiplier was adopted.Even if it is on a little higher side still, in our opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not call for any interference in this appeal. In the result we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is interefere dismissed.