FAO No.4162 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4162 of 2007 Date of Decision. 07.10.2010 Smt. Harjinder Kaur widow of Sh. Gurmukh Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Raj Kumar son of Sh. Amar Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The claim for enhancement of compensation is at the instance of two widows and children of the deceased Gurmukh Singh. The deceased was aged 44 years and he was said to be an agriculturist and also the shop owner having about 55 shops. From the array of parties as claimants, it can be seen that claimants No.5 was a major son and amongst other claimants, claimant Nos.3 to 6 were major daughters and claimant No.8 was minor. The mother was also one of the claimants. At the trial, the evidence was that even apart from his income from shops, he used to cultivate his own land of about 5 acres and take property on lease to the extent of 30 FAO No.4162 of 2007 -2- acres. The Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 10 and determined the compensation as Rs.6,15,000/-. 2. The learned counsel for the claimants would urge that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the plea on behalf of the claimants that there was no proof that the deceased was cultivating any agricultural land on lease. He would want me to accept that even without such a documentary evidence, since oral evidence had been made to the said effect, it must be taken as valid ground for making an enhancement. He would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sudesh Widow of Parshotam Lal and another Vs. Paramjit Singh and others (2002-2) Vol.CXXV PLR 841 to state that a person, who owned agricultural lands and who must be supervising the same better than a paid manager, must be taken as on his death to leave a situation to the family having to secure the management of such lands through some other person and the value of such service must be duly factored. He would also contend that apart from one son, all others were women and they were not wordly wise to manage the properties and even the income from the 55 shops could be effectively collected only by engaging services of some person. The value of services of such person must also be taken due note of. The issue relating to the manner of computation of compensation for a person, who owns agricultural land has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the managerial FAO No.4162 of 2007 -3- skills of person owning agricultural lands around 5 acres to be Rs.3,000/- per month. I would, therefore, take the loss of managerial skills for agricultural land to be Rs.36,000/- per year. On his plea that he was taking on lease agricultural lands, I do not have any better new material than what the Tribunal already dealt with. A proof of cultivation on lease must be normally entered in village cultivation accounts and if that is not available, the evidence should be secured through any one, who had actually granted the lease to the deceased. With no evidence available for the same, I cannot take a different view than how it has been dealt with by the Tribunal. As regards the claim that the income from the shops would require to be collected effectively, it must actually depend on evidence as to what the family has done after his death to make such recoveries and whether there has been employment of services of any person that has caused the estate any amount for such management. I am not being shown through any evidence but I am prepared to accept that it could not cost any less than Rs.2500/- per month to avail the services of some person to secure the monthly rentals. The extent of dependence will, therefore, be Rs.5500/- per month, which would annual work out to Rs.66,000/-. I will not make any deduction for this because the amount itself has been deducted to be the extent of dependence. For a person aged 44 years, I will adopt the multiplier of 14 and the amount that will become payable would be Rs.9,24,000/-. The Tribunal has already Rs.15,000/- towards of loss of funeral expenses and loss of consortium. I will retain the same. The total amount that will become, therefore, FAO No.4162 of 2007 -4- payable would be Rs.9,39,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 07, 2010 Pankaj*