RSA No. 1569 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision: 04.11.2011 RSA No. 1569 of 2011(O&M): Bohar Singh and another ... Appellants versus Jaswinder Kaur and others ... Respondents RSA No. 1409 of 2011: Jaswinder Kaur and another … Appellants versus Bohar Singh and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants in RSA No. 1569 of 2011. Mr.N.K.Manchanda, Advocate, in RSA No. 1409 of 2011 … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Notice of motion. Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate, accepts notice in RSA No. 1569 of 2011 while Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice in RSA No. 1409 of 2011. Delay of 10 days in filing RSA No. 1569 of 2011 is condoned. This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1569 and 1409 of 2011, arising out of suit for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs. In brief, the facts are that plaintiffs, namely, Jaswinder Kaur and Sadhu Singh filed suit for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs against the defendants, namely, Bohar Singh, Charanjit Kaur, Gurmail Singh, Lakha Singh and Gursewak Singh on the allegation that their son Amrik Singh, RSA No. 1569 of 2011 2 aged about 23 years, was murdered by the defendants on 15.12.2001 by strangulation. According to the plaintiffs, on account of murder of their son, case FIR No. 215 dated 20.12.2001 under Section 302, 201, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the said defendants. It is apt to mention here that in the said case, defendants 3 to 5, namely, Gurmail Singh, Lakha Singh and Gursewak Singh were acquitted by the trial Court of the charges after being given the benefit of doubt while defendants 1 and 2, namely, Bohar Singh and Charanjit Kaur were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Against their conviction and sentence, Bohar Singh and Charanjit Kaur filed an appeal which is pending disposal in this Court. Plaintiffs in their suit averred that their deceased son Amrik Singh was very good in his studies as well as in sports and being a good sportsman, he had been awarded various certificates in District Tournaments. Upon notice of the said suit, defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the suit. That apart, an objection was also taken that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it by the parties, observed that since defendants 3 to 5, Gurmail Singh, Lakha Singh and Gursewak Singh were acquitted in the criminal case, no liability could be fastened upon them for compensation. It accordingly decreed the suit partly in favour of plaintiff No.1 Jaswinder Kaur being the Class I heir of the deceased for recovery of Rs.40,000/- against defendants 1 and 2, Bohar Singh and Charanjit Kaur. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, both the plaintiffs went up in appeal. The lower appellate Court though dismissed the appeal of plaintiff No.2, Sadhu Singh but partly allowed the same in regard to plaintiff No.1, Jaswinder Kaur, and modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court by enhancing the compensation to Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decision of the appeal and granted future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decision of appeal till realization of the whole amount. Now defendants 1 and 2, Bohar Singh and Charanjit Kaur, have filed the present appeal, namely, RSA No. 1569 of 2011 challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court whereas RSA No. 1409 of 2011 has been filed by both the plaintiffs for modification of the judgment and decrees of the RSA No. 1569 of 2011 3 Courts with the prayer that their suit be decreed in toto. Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 (appellants in RSA No. 1569 of 2001) has vehemently contended that the lower appellate Court has wrongly relied upon the findings given by the Court in a criminal case upon which the lower appellate Court ought not to have relied upon because the findings of criminal Court are not binding upon the Civil Court and therefore, the plaintiffs could not have been granted compensation by the lower appellate Court. Heard. It is not in dispute that Amrik Singh was murdered and the defendants were prosecuted for the same and held guilty under Sections 302, 201 IPC and accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Their appeal is stated to be pending in this Court. It is further not in dispute that at the time of murder, Amrik Singh was aged 23 years and was a matriculate. He was very good at studies besides being a good sportsman. The inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, continued mental stress in life because of this loss is also very material aspect while considering to grant compensation. Any amount of compensation cannot be equated with the human suffering or personal deprivation in such circumstances. Money is no good to the parents who lost son. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to work out a pattern and method specially in absence of any guidelines, rules and regulations to award and/or ascertain the compensation depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is further not in dispute that Amrik Singh was unmarried at the time of his murder. It cannot be over-looked that had he lived, would have got married, having wife and children and the contribution towards parents would be diminished as substantial amount would be required for the maintenance and welfare of his wife and children. Despite all this, the compensation so awarded by the lower appellate Court is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, the compensation stands enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- to be payable to plaintiff No.1, Jaswinder Kaur, who is a Class-I heir being the mother of the deceased. Coming to the interest, appellant-plaintiff No.1 Jaswinder Kaur would be entitled to interest at the flat rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till RSA No. 1569 of 2011 4 realization. Accordingly, both the appeals, i.e. RSA No. 1569 of 2011 and RSA No. 1409 of 2011 stand disposed of in the manner indicated above. November 04, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE RSA No. 1569 of 2011 5 During the course of hearing, counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shripat Shankar Panchal v. The Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 353, to contend that where the death of a person occurs due to negligence, there are no guidelines, rules and regulations towards compensation in such cases. In that case, the Court had taken into consideration the future income of a non- earning boy who was 11 years old and after taking income as Rs.15,000/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 15, compensation was awarded. In the said case, the boy had died due to negligence of the Municipal Corporation by falling in manhole. RSA No. 1569 of 2011 6