IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.617 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2010 Smt. Kamlesh and others ....Appellants versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. . ---- 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 at the instance of the claimants for enhancement for death of the husband of the first petitioner, who was around 25 years of age. The claimants were a young widow and a child of 2 ½ years of age besides aged parents. It was in evidence that the deceased was in a business as a commission agent through a firm and he had 1/6th share in the profits of the business. It was also contended on behalf of the claimants that he had cultivated agricultural lands on lease and the lessor was also examined as a witness. He gave evidence to the effect that he had over 30 acres of land and half the land had been FAO No.617 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - granted on a lease to the deceased. The firm had been assessed to tax and the Tribunal made reference to the fact that the firm had paid Rs.1,800/- as tax for the year 1993-94. 2. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs.1,500/- and made a deduction of 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 16 to determine the compensation of Rs.1,92,000/-. Both as regards the multiplicand and multiplier, the claimants have a grievance that adequate amounts had not been provided for. 3. Learned counsel for the State would contend that there was no proof that he was in any way involved in the profession as a commission agent and that he held any agricultural land either as an owner or a lessee. He would, therefore, contend that what was assessed by the Tribunal was justified. 4. Both as regards the involvement of the deceased in the profession as a commission agent and as agriculturist augmenting his income through agricultural operations, there had been at least a modicum of evidence. The owner of the land had given evidence that he had allowed the deceased to cultivate his lands. Same way a partner in the firm had been examined to speak about the involvement of the deceased in the business. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have discarded both the evidence and merely taken him to be on par with an unskilled worker to provide for a sum of Rs.1,500/- for his income. I would take two sources of income as commission agent and medical expenses operating on lease as established and would take his average monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. He had four dependents and I would, FAO No.617 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - therefore, provide for a 1/4th deduction and take the extent of contribution to the family at Rs.2,250/-. He was aged 25 years and, therefore, I would take the multiplier of 18 and take the loss of dependence at Rs.4,86,000/-. I would add Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the child. I will add another Rs.5,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. The amount in all would come to Rs.5,03,500/-. 5. I find from the records that there had been an attempt for compromise by the Lok Adalat and the claimants were prepared for settling the claim when the suggestion was that it should be Rs.4,08,000/-. This suggestion had come through the Lok Adalat on 08.08.2000. The conduct of Haryana Roadways in not accepting the fair proposal, I would take as not justified and the claimants have come by needless harm of a prolonged litigation. I will award Rs.10,000/- as cost against the Haryana Roadways. 6. The increase of amount over what was determined by the Tribunal shall enure to the benefit of the widow and son only and that will attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. Since about 13 years have passed from the date of the accident and I have provided for a multiplier of 18, I shall allow for a disbursement of the amount to the tune of 75% and take 25% of the amount of increase alone to be retained in a nationalized bank deposit. The amounts that are payable to the widow and the child will be split into 5 equal shares for their respective shares, the first share for a period of one year and second for a period of two years and so on upto the period of 5 years for FAO No.617 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - 5th share. The amounts will be paid with interest accumulation on the respective dates of maturity. 7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.11.2010 sanjeev