IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1992 in/and FAO No.28 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:20.01.2011 Smt. Harjinder Kaur ....Appellant versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. A.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Abhaypal Singh Gill, Advocate, for Mr.G.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.2/Cross-objector. ---- 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 ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation and there is cross objection also in relation to the negligence as found against the driver of the State vehicle. 2. The cross objection is at the instance of a driver of the car that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. The motorcyclist himself had been examined and the suggestion to him was that the motorcyclist fell on a rainy day seeing the car coming from the opposite direction. A person does not get panicked by a car coming from the opposite direction and it Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1992 in/and FAO No.28 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - was too artificial that I find that the Tribunal had justified in rejecting the contention and finding that the driver of the car was responsible for the accident. I maintain the finding and hold the driver of the car responsible for the accident and reject the cross objection. The cross objection is, therefore, dismissed. 3. The appeal in FAO No.28 of 1992 is for enhancement of compensation for death of a boy, aged 18 years. He had completed +2. The evidence through the mother was that her son was a brilliant student and got first divisions and he was planning to become an engineer. The Tribunal took the contribution to the family at Rs.500/-, adopted a multiplier of 10 and awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 4. Determination of compensation for death of a student is never done on the basis of what he could have contributed at that time. A notional projection of what the expectations of the parents, given a particular economic and social status is seen to be relevant in decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.S.Grewal Versus Deep Chand Sood- 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 214, Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar-2001(8) SCC 197 and Priya Vasant Kalgutkar Versus Murad Shaikh and others-2010 AIR (SC) 40. In each one of these cases, the situations were of the prospect of what the ward could have become and what the reasonable expectations of the parents could have been. In this case, the mother was a widow and her evidence was that she expected her son to do engineering and support her through his business. I would give that evidence a weightage and take that he would earn, if he had become engineer, at least Rs.2,500/-. I will take the contribution to the mother at Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1992 in/and FAO No.28 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - Rs.1,250/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 14 and find the loss of dependency as Rs.2,10,000/-. I will also award an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the mother and provide a further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. I will make a further addition of Rs.50,000/- as special damages to the mother. The total amount of compensation would come to Rs.2,67,500/-. The amount determined in excess over what has been awarded already by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. The appeal shall be allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.01.2011 sanjeev