F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant versus Jasvir Kaur and another ....Respondents Present:- Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. This is the first appeal against the award of learned Tribunal dated 03.08.2011 whereby the award was passed in favour of the petitioners and against respondent jointly and severally granting compensation of Rs.18,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the same. The petitioners (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after to be referred as 'the Act') for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.40 lacs on account of death of Jarnail Singh. Jarnail Singh was 32 years old and was runing diary farm and was doing agriculture. On 15.03.2010, Jarnail Singh was coming from Village Malla to his Village Sema on his Zen Car No. HR-24- D-2913. One Mini Bus No. PB03-R-9478 was coming from vilage Sema Kalan F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) -2- at a very high speed, being driven by one Jagjit Singh alias Jaggi. Jagjit Singh alias Jaggi hit the car of Jarnail Singh. Thereafter, he Jagjit Singh alias Jaggi fled away from the spot after leaving the bus there. The accident was witnessed by Sukhdev Singh alias Bhola brother of the deceased and Bansa singh, who were coming from Village Poohli side after paying the obeisance at dera Wadbhag Singh.. F.I.R NO. 31 dated 15.03.2010 under Sections 279/304-A/427 of IPC Police Station Nathana has been registered against Jagjit Singh alias Jagga. On pleading of the parties, following issues were framed on 05.10.2010:- 1. Whether on 15.3.2010, respondent No. 1 drove Bus bearing No. PB-03R-9478 rashly and negligently and caused death of Jarnail Singh? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and interest? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was holding a valid and affective during license at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether but involved in the accident was having valid registration certificate and fitness certificate and route permit? OPR 5. Relief. An application filed by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company on 20.09.2010 under Section 170 of the Act. They were permitted to contest the claim petition. Evidence was led by both the parties in support of their respective claims. Jagjit Singh alias Jagga did not step into the witness box to make a statement on oath or to prove averments of his written statement. Statements made by RW1-Inderjit Singh attorney of respondent No. 2, vide special power of attorney dated 15.3.2010 Ex.R1 and R.2 Gurmail Singh F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) -3- respondent No. 2 himself are of no avail to the respondents as they are not eye witnesses of the accident. Thereafter, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5). On issue No. 2, the tribunal has examined the evidence in total and has come to a conclusion, which reads as under:- Further A.W.2 Kulwant Singh proved Bahi entry dated 20.01.2011 Ex.A1 whereby 9 killas of land was given by him and his brother Gurjant Singh on lease to Jarnail Singh deceased and his brother Sukhdev Singh for a rent @ Rs. 34,000/- peracre.As per Bahi entry dated 15.12.20098 Ex.A2 his land measuring 9 kanals was leased out by them in favour of Jarnail Singh since deceased for a rent of Rs. 1,30,000/- during the year 2009-10. CW4 Bhushan Kumar is Special Attorney of his wife Rita Aggarwal, vide special Power of Attorney dated 25.01.2011 Ex.A12. He brought on record agreement Ex.A11 whereby 83 kanals 13 marlas of land was taken on lease by deceased Jarnail Singh and his brother Sukhdev Singh from Rita Aggarwal for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.20410 for a rent @ Rs. 34,000/- per acre. Ex.A7 is copy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 of 63 kanals 3 marlas, Ex.A.8 is copy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 of 56 kanals 8 marlas and Ex.A9 is copy of jamabandi for the year 2005-06 of 11 kanals 8 marlas wherein petitioner No.5 Kirpal Singh father of deceased Jarnail Singh is having 1/3 share. Ex.A.10 is copy of jamabandi for the year F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 2005-06 of 123 kanals of land wherein Jarnail singh deceased had 1/6 share. Ex.R1 is copy of jamabandi for the year 2004-05 of 100 kanals 19 marlas of land wherein Kulwant Singh and his brother Gurjant Singh had 1/3 share each and remaining 1/3 share is recorded in the name of their mother Smt. Surjit Kaur. These revenue documents are of the land which was being cultivated by Jarnail Singh. 13. From the above said documents and statement of AW1 Jasvir Kaur petitioner No. 1, AW2 Kulwant Singh AW2 and CW4 Bhushan Kumar it is evidence that Jarnail Singh since deceased was doing agriculture and was rrunning diary farming. Although it has been alleged by the petitioners that he was earing Rs. 3.50 lacs per annum, but there is nothing on record showing that he was filing income tax return. So, his income was below taxable limit not requiring the filing of income tax return. Keeping in view all these above said facts, income of deceased Jarnail Singh is assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 16 to annual income of Rs.1,50,000/- of the deceased, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 24,00,000/-. Petitioner No. 1 is widow, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are mother and father of the deceased Jarnail Singh and were dependent upon him. As per law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case, amount to the extent of ¼ share is to be reduced from the above said F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) -5- compensation amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 6,00,000/-. hence the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The petitioners are further held entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- on account of funeral, last rites and transportation expenses and petitioner No. 1 being spouse of the deceased is also held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium. The amount of compensation comes to Rs. 18,25,000/-. The award of Tribunal dated 03.08.2011 has been passed on well settled principle of law. Accordingly, F.A.O is dismissed. November 11, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE F.A.O No. 6679 of 2011 (O&M) -6-