FAO No.4122 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4122 of 2001 Date of Decision: February 07, 2011 Updesh Kapur ….Appellant Versus Mohan Singh ad another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. *** K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of the wife of the claimant in a motor accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. The deceased was an Indian citizen and settled in United Kingdom and the accident had taken place during her visit to India. She held a Higher Diploma in Business and Finance and was a Sales Executive in Shangri-La International PTE Ltd. on a salary of £ 18916 per year. Before the tribunal, the evidence through the Department of Revenue and the employer’s salary certificate duly certified by the Indian Embassy had been filed. However, the tribunal rejected the same on the ground that it was not properly proved. He therefore, took the income as that of a householder and provided a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. -1- FAO No.4122 of 2001 3. The manner of determination of compensation and the proof of the documents as expected by the tribunal was wholly erroneous. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act sets out the powers and procedure of the claim tribunal. The claim tribunal has the powers to regulate its own procedure and has power also to compel the witnesses for discovery and production of documents. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, allows the tribunal to hold an enquiry into the claim and determine the compensation which appears to be just. The nature of inquiry which Section 168 contemplated must be understood in the context of the benefit with the Act seeks to provide and the enquiry should be understood as an enquiry which is summary in nature. All the trappings of full-fledged trial in regular civil suit must be wholly discarded by the tribunal. While the tribunal must guard itself against spurious documents, there is simply no justification for tribunal to reject documents produced with the official seal through the Executive Officer of England Revenue Director of Ports Mount Maritime duly authenticated by the Indian Consulate . The document sets out the income as earned by the deceased, and the tax that had been deducted. It also sets out the particular code number that had been assigned to the deceased as Code No.350-L. It also gives the details of the income for the year 1996-97 for a whole year and for the year 1997-98 up to the date of the death i.e. 05.01.1998. The credentials of the deceased as a person of academic distinction in economics and finance were brought through a certificate by EDEXCEL Foundation. I cannot reject the documentary evidence of this type and take her to be a house wife whose services could be estimated Rs.3000/-. Such an approach would be a gross travesty of justice. -2- FAO No.4122 of 2001 4. The learned counsel seeks provision for increase as contemplated in case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, but I do not think it is necessary for it has not come as a general principle applicable in all cases to provide for prospect of increased in salary. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court must be confined to a situation where a person is in a Govt. service or in service which had a security of tenure to provide for an increase in a particular percentage of the basic salary. I will not find use for this principle for a person who already had a high income status. 5. Keeping in view of a relative high income status with equally higher standard of living, I will provide for 50% deduction and take the remaining as contribution to the family/husband. She was 29 years of age and I will adopt the multiplier of 17 and also make an additional provision for loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I take the documents as established and will take the income minus tax at £ 15374 per year and tabulate the income as below:- Fatal Accidents Age 29 Occupation Sales Executive, Shangri-La International PTE Ltd £ 18257 pounds per year Claimants: Head of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (£.) 1 Income £ 15,374 per year 2 Deduction (1/2) £ 7867 3 Multiplicand 4 Multiplier 17 5 Loss of dependence 1,33,739 6 Medical expenses 7 Loss of consortium 500 8 Loss to estate 1000 9 Funeral expenses 3,00,000/- 1,35,239 -3- FAO No.4122 of 2001 The foreign exchange at that time was said to be @ 68/- and total compensation would be 91,96,252/- (Ninety one lacs ninety six thousand two hundred and fifty two only). This will also attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of payment. 6. The liability shall be on the 2nd respondent as owner of the vehicle vicariously for the negligent act of the driver i.e. the 1st respondent. 07.02.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE -4-