FAO No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 30.03.2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 139-140, 1st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager Sh. Vikas Bhutani ......Appellant Versus Sardool Singh son of Sh. Desa Singh and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.2082 of 2011 (O&M) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 139-140, 1st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager Sh. Vikas Bhutani ......Appellant Versus Charanjit Kaur wife of late Sh. Harvinder Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, 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. Delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident against the petitions independently filed, one at the instance of the parents and siblings and another at the instance of the widow and children. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation took note of the fact that the deceased was a Postgraduate in Economics with Diploma in Education FAO No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) -2- and he was cultivating his own land as well as taking lands of others on lease. A person, who had granted such lease to the deceased was also examined. There was also evidence for the fact that the deceased was supplying milk to local persons and was doing dairy business. The person, who was receiving such supplies from the deceased had also produced note-book before the Tribunal to show that he used to pay @Rs.10/- per litre and he had produced his own book to show that he had paid Rs.8,100/- for every 10 days. The Tribunal, therefore, had appropriate evidence to determine the income at Rs.7,000/- per month and proceeded to assess the compensation on such basis. 3. The learned counsel states that account book produced by third party did not contain the signature of the deceased and he also said that in respect of lands alleged to have been leased in favour of the deceased by a third party, there was no document. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that the land does not exclusively stand in the name of deceased but the jamabandi shows that it was in joint cultivation. I do not think that this is going to make any difference in the overall assessment of compensation. Here the Tribunal was aware of the fact that the deceased was not an illiterate agriculturist finding it difficult to make both ends meet but he was a Postgraduate and well educated and he devised good sources of income to support his family. The assessment made by sifting of evidence, which were worthy of acceptance, cannot be faulted in appeal before this Court. The overall compensation assessed at Rs.7,35,000/- for all the family members of deceased is appropriate and just and I find no reason to interfere with the same. FAO No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 4. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. 5. The amount deposited before this Court at the time of preferring both the appeals is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal to the credit of the case for realization of the claim. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 30, 2011 Pankaj*