FAO No.593 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.593 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION: February 1, 2011 HAZARA SINGH ...APPELLANTS VERSUS HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS ...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? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. VINEY SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR MR. G.S. NAGRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a 28 year old man who left behind his widow, a minor child aged 10 months and aged parents. At the time of trial, the widow had remarried and the Tribunal while determining the compensation provided a mere `8000/- for the wife who had remarried. The deceased was a scooterist and the accident had taken place when he was attempting to cross the road by turning towards his right through a gap in the road divider meant for allowing vehicles going on one lane to go past other lane to another direction. The collision had taken place somewhere at the middle of the bus near the diesel tanker and the Court found that the accident could have taken place only by the contributory negligence of the driver of the bus as well as the scooterist. In the manner in which collision had taken place, I cannot find any fault with the assessment of contributory negligence and I will retain the same. 2. As regards the quantum, the deceased was working in a FAO No.593 of 1988 -2- Middle-East company earning `5000/- and the wife's contention was that her husband used to send `2500/- to her. The parents claimed that their son used to pay `1000/-. The Tribunal took the loss of dependency to the family at `1000/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the loss of dependency at `1,92,000/-. It provided for a 50% abatement of claim for the contributory negligence and out of `96,000/- it provided `8000/- to the widow, `4000/- each to the parents and `80,000/- to the minor daughter. 3. The modification that I would make would be to provide for loss to estate which I have estimated at `5000/- and loss of dependency, re- worked on the basis that contribution to the family must have been at least `2000/- having regard to the fact that the wife herself has married and the dependency has to be provided only for the child who was left through her life without the father and her parents. The Tribunal has awarded a multiplier of 16 and I would retain the same. I would also award additional amount of `5000/- towards loss of love and affection and `5000/- towards loss to estate and `2500/- for funeral expenses. The Tribunal has already provided for `8000/- to be given to the wife. The same would be retained. The over all compensation that will become payable comes to `4,04,500/-. The additional amount shall also attract interest @ 6^ from the date of petition till the date of payment. As regards the increased amount of compensation that has come through this award it shall be shared between the child who was a minor at the time of the accident and the parents in the ratio of 4:1:1. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. February 1, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE