RSA No.598 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.598 1992 Date of Decision: 21.03.2009 Smt.Sarla Devi Singla ..Appellant Vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Balram K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.H.S.Giani, Advocate, for the respondent. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. This appeal raises following substantial question of law for consideration of this court: “ Whether the learned courts below were justified in rejecting the claim of loss of income by treating it to be too remote? Vide judgment of even date in RSA No.1408 1991 titled RSA No.598 1992 2 Mrs.Usha Kumar Vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, it has been held that the defendant/respondent were guilty of negligence and breach of statutory duty resulting in damage to the plaintiff and thus, finding on issue No.1 by the learned lower appellate court is affirmed. The appellant in the present case has challenged the finding on issue No.2 on the plea that the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded is inadequate. The plaintiff/appellant claimed damages on the plea that due to negligence of defendant/respondent, the plaintiff suffered damages to the tune of Rs.89,990/- on account of burning down of her poultry shed with 1000 poultry birds along with poultry feed, office furniture and equipment. Though the learned trial court had dismissed the suit by deciding issue No.1 against the plaintiff/appellant, however, learned lower appellate court reversed the finding on issue No.1 and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Learned lower appellate court came to the conclusion that factum of 1000 birds having been destroyed in the accident could safely be accepted. The learned lower appellate court held that the loss could be assessed by taking the price of each bird at Rs.10/- instead of 13 or 14 as claimed by PW 9. As the age of birds was not disclosed, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was accordingly awarded under this head. Learned lower appellate court also rightly assessed the value of shed at Rs.15000/- as it was 16 years old and not 5-7 years old as was claimed in the report Ex.P.2 in assessing damage to the tune of Rs.31,740/-. RSA No.598 1992 3 Learned lower appellate court held that there was no document in support of loss of furniture and equipment as was claimed. The court on the basis of assessment granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- as well on account of equipment and Rs.1000/- for the loss of feed. However, learned lower appellate court rejected the loss of business by holding it to be too remote. However, this finding of the learned lower appellate court is to be held to be perverse and contrary to settled law. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Savitri Devi V. State of Haryana 1984 P.L.R. 47, wherein Hon'ble Division Bench of this court was pleased to assess the compensation for the loss of earning of poultry farm at Re.1 per bird per month for 12 months. Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Savitri Devi V. State of Haryana (supra) was pleased to lay down as under:- “B. Land Acquisition Act, Section 23 (1) fourthly- Acquisition of Poultry farm- Claimant closed business – Still entitled to compensation for time it will take to restart business – Held that where there is poultry farm on acquired land – Claimant entitled for the period which it will take to restart poultry business and to receive income from the birds and it will hardly makes any difference whether clamantable to restart business after acquiring suitable land or had closed the business for non0avilability of land – Claimant entitled to compensation for loss or earning equivalent to income for one year -Allowed Re.1/- per bird per month for 12 month.” RSA No.598 1992 4 Consequently, finding on issue No.2 is modified and the appeal is party allowed and compensation payable is enhanced to Rs.42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the suit till recovery. 21.3.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge