FAO No.932 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.932 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2011 Narinder Kaur and Ors. ... Appellants Versus Mangal Singh and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4 and 5. ***** 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 the enhancement of claim for compensation at the instance of the claimants who were the widow and the daughters of the deceased. He was 37 years of age and he had taken training in Poultry farming from Animal Husbandry Department. He also owned agricultural lands of about 3 acres. 2. The accident which was said to have been taken place when he was going on a scooter and met with a collision with the bus belonging to Punjab Roadways. The Tribunal found on evidence under the issue as to whether the FAO No.932 of 2000 (O&M) -2- driver of the Punjab Roadways was responsible for the accident, that indeed the accident had taken place only on account of negligence of the driver of the bus, who was attempting to overtake a truck and went to the wrong side of the road to come in a collision with the scooter. Quite inconsistently with the same reasoning, the Tribunal also held that the collision with the scooterist had come about only when the scooterist was trying to overtake the vehicle going in its front and if he had been more careful, the accident could not have taken place. The Tribunal also observed that when the accident was in the morning, the driver of the bus had still put on the headlights to indicate that he was overtaking another vehicle and that he was proceedings on the other side of the road and indicating that he should have a right of way before the other vehicle coming from the opposite direction further went on. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the liability for the deceased and the driver of bus as 75% and 25%, respectively. 3. I cannot accept the finding of the Tribunal as regard the contributory negligence, since the Tribunal which was attempting to found the cause for the accident had already observed that it was only the negligence of the driving of the driver of the bus that caused the accident. To say that a scooterist could have been more careful to avoid the collusion cannot lead to an inference that he had also contributed to the accident. Normally the accident is result of some amount of lack of care and in motor accident setting, he only examine as to who is responsible for the accident. If the Tribunal would find that the driver of the bus was guilty of rash and negligent driving, unless it is held that another person was also rash and negligent, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the scooterist could have been more careful, is not the same FAO No.932 of 2000 (O&M) -3- thing saying that the scooterist was also negligent. I will, therefore, set aside the finding that there was a case of contributory negligence against the deceased. 4. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took the income at Rs.5,000/- from his two sources, namely, agricultural lands and poultry farming. AW-6 had been examined to say that the deceased used to purchase poultry feeds from him and AW-5 was examined to say that the deceased used to sell the grains from his land through him. 5. Learned counsel states that the evidence of the widow was that her husband was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In a case where the agricultural lands exist, it is not merely the income which is relevant. It should be on the other hand, the managing skills of the deceased that would become relevant. The Supreme Court in a case titled “State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484” has held that the value of the managing skills of a person who owned lands of about 3 to 5 acres, could be taken as Rs.3,000/-. For want of any better quality of evidence relating to the value of the managing skills of the deceased, I will take the average income at Rs.3,000/-. Even as regards the poultry farming, if there had been any evidence of how much he used to sell through accounts which he ought to have maintained, it would have been helpful. I would assume that he earned about an amount of Rs.3,000/- from poultry farming and take the total income as Rs.6,000/-. This is still less than the taxable limit for the year 1997 when he died. Providing for 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses, I take the contribution to the family as Rs.48,000/- per year and adopt a multiplier of 15 to assess the loss of dependency at Rs.7,20,000. I will further provide FAO No.932 of 2000 (O&M) -4- Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of consortium for the wife and Rs.5,000/- for love and affection for two children. I will make further addition of Rs.2,500/- as funeral expenses and hold the total amount of compensation payable as Rs.7,32,500/-. 6. The amount which is determined in excess of what has been assessed by the Tribunal as payable shall also attract the interest @ 6% p.a. The amount shall be distributed in the same proportion in which the Tribunal has assessed the compensation as payable amongst the claimants. The liability shall be on respondents No.2 and 3 being the owner and driver of the vehicle. 7. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. MAY 20, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE