FAO No.934 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.934 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 05.05.2011 Bati w/o late Lekh Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Jagbir Singh s/o Sh. Puran Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Badhana, 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 for enhancement of claim for compensation sought at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased, who was 50 years of age. At the time of the accident, he was even hanging outside the jeep and when the accident took place, he fell down and suffered fatal injuries. 2. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal held that the deceased had himself contributed to the accident and therefore, after assessing the amount, it also made partial abatement to the extent of about 50%. While working out the quantum of compensation, the evidence was led that he was an agricultural labour and was also doing business in vending milk. There was also evidence adduced through persons, who had bought milk from him. The Tribunal took the situation as making possible the assessment of income at Rs.6,000/- per month and taking the age as 50 on the basis of the ration FAO No.934 of 2011 (O&M) -2- card, made a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 11 suitable to the age of the deceased as per the scales of compensation provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,94,000/-. It also added the conventional heads of claim and took the total amount payable at Rs.6,24,000/- and deducted 50% for contributory negligence to award a compensation of Rs.3,12,000/-. 3. While determining the liability amongst the respondents, the Court found that the vehicle had been insured as a private vehicle but it was seen to be used as a taxi when there was several passengers travelling in the vehicle and they were also persons hanging out of the jeep. Learned counsel argues that in a claim emanating from a passenger or his representative in a vehicle, there could not have been such a presumption that it was used for a commercial purpose. A person, who was not in any way connected to the owner and driver but he has seen as third party and seen travelling in the vehicle and particularly hanging out of the vehicle, the appellant had reason to explain as to how the deceased came to be travelling in the vehicle if he were not a paid passenger. If the Tribunal had made a presumption that the vehicle had been used for commercial purpose, it had reason for doing so, having regard to the nature of evidence of so many other passengers who were travelling in the said vehicle beyond the authorized capacity. I will not find any justification for taking a different view of the matter. The exoneration of the insurance company, under these circumstances and making the owner and driver liable for the accident was justified. FAO No.934 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 4. Learned counsel argues that the Tribunal has not provided for any amount towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, which I would understand as factoring all the conventional heads of claim including funeral expenses. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 05, 2011 Pankaj*