FAO No.619 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.619 of 1996 Date of Decision.14.12.2010 Lila Wati wife of Yaad Ram (through LRs) and another ......Appellants Versus Sat Pal son of Sh. Nagina Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. 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. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for damages for death of the son of the claimants. The deceased was a daily casual labour aged 21 years and on the date of accident, he was said to be travelling in a cycle, which dashed against the respondent bus. As spoken to by PW2, an eye witness, the claimant was going on a cycle near the bus stand at Kurukshetra and the bus belonging to the respondent from the side of the Kurukshetra University came at high speed and dashed against the cycle of the deceased. An eye witness said to have been present at the site, had admitted the deceased in the hospital where he died. It was suggested to the witness that the deceased was catching on to the chain attached to a tractor trolley and he lost his control when bus was coming near and dashed against FAO No.619 of 1996 -2- the respondent bus that had just then stopped and become stationary. The driver of the bus had also been examined and he gave evidence to the effect that the deceased was coming from the opposite side catching on to a chain fitted in the trolley and he had lost control over the cycle and the balance tilted and in the process pipe loaded on the cycle parallel to its direction hit the front window of the bus and the cyclist fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The manner in which the graphic description of the accident was given by the driver would definitely lend credence to the version that the deceased himself had in some way contributed to the accident. The Tribunal had assessed the liability as 40:60 as regards the negligence between the cyclist and the driver of the bus. I will retain the said finding. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month, adopted a deduction of 50% and after applying a multiplier of 8, determined the loss of dependence at Rs.72000/- but granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. There was evidence in this case to the effect that the deceased was working on daily basis in P&T Department and used to contribute to his family at Rs.1000/- per month. Claimants had also given evidence to the effect that he had owned two kanals of land and the deceased used to cultivate the land himself. I will take the contribution to the family as stated by PW1 and adopt a multiplier of 9 instead of 8 as taken by the Tribunal and extend the loss of dependence at Rs.1,08,000/-. I will add another Rs.12,000/- towards conventional heads of claim like funeral expenses, loss to estate etc. and take the amount payable as FAO No.619 of 1996 -3- Rs.1,20,000/-. I retain the extent of liability as determined by the Tribunal that the deceased himself had contributed to the accident to the extent of 40%. I will make a partial abatement of the claim upto 40% and take the amount of compensation as Rs.72000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal 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 December 14, 2010 Pankaj*