FAO No.445 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.445 of 1990 & X-Objection No.73-CII of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 14, 2011 MANOJ BATRA & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. RAKESH NEHRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. J.L. MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. SANJEEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR X-OBJECTOR-RESPONDENT NO.2. MR. R.K. BASHAMBOO, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a person who was an agriculturist and was 61 years of age. The accident had taken place in an attempt when the deceased was overtaking a truck and the insured vehicle coming from the opposite direction dashed against the deceased who was going on his own car. Counsel for the appellant seeks for time for adjournment, I reject the same having regard to the fact that the case is of the year 1999 and it cannot brook any further delay. There is also a cross appeal at the instance of the owner of the insured vehicle contending that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and if at all, the Tribunal ought to have found contributory negligence to the claimant. I do FAO No.445 of 1990 -2- not wish to make any reversal of the finding as regards the issue of negligence, for, it has been duly considered by the Tribunal and it has held that even in photograph taken on that occasion the truck had been only shown partly on the left side of the road and it did not indicate that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the vehicle. Maintaining the finding of negligence as entered by the Tribunal, I dismiss the cross-appeal and proceed to examine the case relating to the quantum on the evidence available. 2. The deceased was said to be an agriculturist which has come on record as to the extent of property that he was owning. The Tribunal took the income to be `2000/-, provided for 1/3rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 5. I would take the income as taken by the Tribunal and take the extent of dependency also as taken by the Tribunal as 2/3rd and adopt a multiplier of 7 instead of 5 as taken by the Tribunal and hold the loss at `1,12,000/-. I would add `5000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and make further addition of `2500/- towards loss of estate and `2000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the total sum of compensation shall be `1,21,500/-. The Tribunal has already awarded `80,238/- and the amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The increase in compensation shall be distributed equally amongst the claimants. The liability amongst the respondents shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The cross-appeal is dismissed. January 14, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE