FAO No.7144 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7144 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2013 Smt. Prem Devi (aged 36 years) w/o Late Shri Narender Singh and others. .. Appellants Versus Nasir Ahmed son of Shri Jahoor Khan, r/o village Sukhpuri, PS and Tehsil Nagina & District Mewat and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for Mr. RC Gupta, Advocate, for respondent 3. ***** 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 compensation brought at the instance of the representatives of the deceased male aged 36 years. He was said to be a dealer in spare parts having taken a property on rent at `2,500/- per month. The rent deed was exhibited as Ex.P4. He was also said to be an owner of 8 kanals of land. The contention was that the deceased was earning `1,50,000/- p.a. from his business and `1,50,000/- p.a. from his agriculture. The Tribunal rejected the FAO No.7144 of 2011(O&M) [2] plea and held that there was no proof that he was running the shop there being no sales tax assessment or any bill-book to show that he was doing business. 2. The learned counsel would also point out to the fact that the Court had provided for a large slice of deduction at 1/3rd for personal expenses when he had a large family of widow, 3 children and father to support. The learned counsel would argue that the appellants had even produced a photograph to show the shop which the deceased was actually running and there ought to have been a reasonable provision for the income earned from his business. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that there was no evidence which ought to have been possible if he was running a business, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income to be only `3,000/- per month and worked out the compensation. He was urged that the conventional heads of claim had been adequately provided for. 3. In a case where a rent deed had also been filed and for proof of the fact that the deceased was running a shop and there was a photograph evidencing the existence of a shop, the Court must have provided for income not as the big time shop owner having sales tax registration but as a person who have had a modest income that would allow him to pay rent of `2,500/- per month. I will take the net income as `4,000/- per FAO No.7144 of 2011(O&M) [3] month on a modest scale and also take `2,000/- per month agricultural income being the value of the managerial expenses for a small piece of land that he owned. In a case where the estate is available, the income from agricultural land itself cannot be a basis but it could be only the likely loss of expenditure that the surviving representatives would have to incur for carrying on agricultural operations. I will rework the compensation providing, therefore, for an aggregate of `6,000/- as the average income, providing 1/4th deduction and adopting the multiplier in the manner already provided by the Tribunal. I will maintain all the conventional heads of claim like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection for children and the expenditure for funeral expenses that had already been awarded by the Tribunal and add `5,000/- for loss to estate. The compensation which is worked out is tabulated as under: Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount (`) Amount (`) 1 Income 3000 6000 2 Add, % of increase at 30% / 50% nil - - 3 Less, Deduction (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/3 1/4 4 Multiplicand (annulised by multiplying 12) 2000 4500 5 Multiplier 16 16 6 Loss of dependence 384000 864000 7 Medical expenses - - 8 Loss of Consortium 10000 10000 FAO No.7144 of 2011(O&M) [4] Heads of claim Tribunal High Court 9 Loss of love and affection for children 10000 10000 10 Loss to estate - 5000 11 Funeral expenses 10000 10000 Total 4,14,000 8,99,000 The total compensation payable will be `8,99,000/-. The amount in excess what has been determined already by the Tribunal will attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and the compensation will be divided in the ratio of 2:2:2:2:1 between the widow, 3 children and the father. Out of the sum determined as the Tribunal has already found that there shall be an abatement to tune of 25% for the contributory negligence of the deceased. It was a case of head on collision but the Tribunal found that the insured driver was to take a higher share of culpability for the accident. I will maintain the same and after providing for 25% abatement the remaining amount shall be `6,74,250/-. The amount shall be distributed in the manner referred to above. 4. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 14th January, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE