FAO No.1267 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1267 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 2, 2011 SHAKUNTLA DEVI W/O SH.PREM CHAND & ORS. ...APPELLANT VERSUS PURAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. G.S. PUNIA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. SANJIV PABBI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of a boy aged 18 years. The claimants were the parents. He was said to be a mechanic and a person who had employed him to do work in his mechanic shed was also examined. 2. The accident was spoken to by one Vinay Kumar who had lodged an FIR soon after the accident that took place on 11.11.1995. The Tribunal held that alongwith the deceased one Balwant Singh was travelling on the motorcycle and he had not been examined. It also held that there was a discrepancy in the name of the deceased given as Kulbir Kumar when the witness was making reference to Kulbir Singh. This, the Tribunal found to be a major discrepancy. I find the approach the Tribunal to be perverse for, there was no denying the fact that the person by the name of Kulbir died in a motor accident involving the insured's vehicle bearing registration No.PIS- FAO No.1267 of 1998 -2- 1451. Neither the driver nor the owner entered the witness stand to deny the accident. The post mortem certificate showed that a person by the name of Kulbir Kumar died on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. The case could not have been dismissed only for the alleged discrepancy in referring to the name of the deceased as Kulbir Singh in evidence when his name was Kulbir Kumar. I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that death was only on account of the injuries suffered in the accident involving the insured's vehicle. 3. I would assess the compensation taking the income at a notional amount at `15,000/- and take the contribution to the family at 1/3rd of the same and adopt a multiplier of 16 as provided under Schedule II and take the loss of dependency at `1,60,000/- and add another `4500/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. The over-all compensation would be 1,64,500/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 50% of the amount will be distributed to the first claimant and the remaining 50% will be distributed amongst all the legal heirs who have been brought on record. The first appellant shall also take a share alongwith the legal representatives in the remaining 50% amount. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. May 2, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE