CM No.5312-C of 2010 and ::1:: RSA No.1747 of 2010 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.5312-C of 2010 and RSA No.1747 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 05.05.2010 Punjab State through Collector, Gurdaspur and others .. Appellants Versus Smt.Kajal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellant-Punjab State. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) CM No.5312-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded in the application, same stands allowed. RSA No.1747 of 2010 (O & M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for damages on account of the death of one Sushil Kumar, whose scooter struck against a fallen tree, which had negligently been allowed to be left on the road by the employees of the appellants. The plea of the appellants was that in fact, the tree had fallen just a couple of hours before the accident and therefore, the accident had to be classified as an act of God. The Courts below have, however, found that the tree had fallen at least 3 days before and reports regarding the same and (hazards caused to the public) had also appeared in the press prior to the accident. In these circumstances, though the learned Trial Court decreed CM No.5312-C of 2010 and ::2:: RSA No.1747 of 2010 (O & M) the suit for claim (Rs.10 Lacs) however, learned Lower Appellate Court reduced the claim to Rs.7,20,000/- on calculating the annual dependency at Rs.48,000/- and allowing the multiplier of 15 since the deceased was 25 years old. The following question has been proposed:- (i) Whether the order passed by the Additional District Judge is legally tenable? It would be seen that question proposed is general question of fact. I further find that the learned Courts below have not made any provision to secure the interest of the respondent No.2, who is a minor. Further, no apportionment has been done between the plaintiffs inter se as well as the respondent No.3, who is the mother of the deceased. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In my considered opinion, the compensation amount would have to be divided into 3 shares. 1/3rd share of the daughter- respondent No.2 as well as of the respondent No.3-mother, would be put in a Fixed Deposit and the monthly interest thereon would be released to the respondent No.1-as far as the share of the respondent No.2 is concerned- and respondent No.3 for her own share. It is further made clear that 1/3rd share of the respondent No.3 would devolve upon the respondent No.2- minor daughter after the demise of the respondent No.3-mother. I further find that the learned Lower Appellate Court has reduced the pre-decretal interest of 9% to 6% while maintaining the future interest. In my further considered opinion, the interest rate is CM No.5312-C of 2010 and ::3:: RSA No.1747 of 2010 (O & M) inadequate. However, since no appeal has been filed by the respondents, the same is left unchanged with a caveat that in case the full amount as along with the interest is not disbursed to the respondents in the manner indicated above or deposited with the learned Executing Court within a period of 90 days, the appellants would be liable to pay interest for the entire period at 8% p.a. With these clarifications, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the stay application as well as the civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 05, 2010 sukhpreet