FAO No.649 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.10-CII of 1990 and FAO No.649 of 1989 Date of Decision. 05.01.2011 State of Haryana (through Secretary Govt. of Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh) ......Appellant Versus Smt. Champa widow of Ramurti and others ......Respondents 2. X Obj No.11-CII of 1990 and FAO No.664 of 1989 State of Haryana (through Secretary Govt. of Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh) ......Appellant Versus Smt. Kuldip Kaur widow of Gurbachan Singh and others ......Respondents 3. X Obj No.12-CII of 1990 and FAO No.665 of 1989 State of Haryana (through Secretary Govt. of Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh) ......Appellant Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi widow of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate for respondent No.4 in FAO No.649 of 1989. for respondent No.5 in FAO No.664 of 1989. None for other respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- FAO No.649 of 1989 -2- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. All the appeals arise out of the same accident and the appeals are by the State which owned the jeep in which all the three deceased were travelling. The accident had taken place when yet another truck hit the jeep from behind in an attempt to overtake the jeep and when there was not sufficient way to overtake, it had collided with the jeep. The Tribunal found that the negligence of the jeep and the truck were compositely established and apportioned the liability as between the truck and the jeep in the ratio of 60:40. The learned counsel appearing for the State would contend that the driver, owner and insurer of the truck had not even been impleaded and the manner of apportionment of liability for negligence was wholly erroneous. I cannot take such a contention now at this length of time when the issue is whether the claimants were entitled to claim compensation for death arising out of the accident and whether the claims could suffer any abatement in view of any negligence on the part of the truck driver even if it was to be wholly attributed to the driver of the truck. As far as the passengers in the jeep are concerned, a collision between two vehicles would constitute only composite negligence and no portion of the claim could have suffered any abatement. In the manner of apportionment if the Tribunal had provided for a higher percentage of the liability to the driver of the truck for attempt to overtake and had cast a lower percentage of liability by 40% for the driver of the jeep in not affording a right of way for a vehicle trying to overtake, I cannot find fault especially when I find that all the claimants were representatives of deceased, FAO No.649 of 1989 -3- who had themselves not contributed to the accident. 2. Cross objection No.10-CII of 1990 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Rammurti in FAO No.649 of 1989, who was aged about 30 years. It was stated in the evidence that he was a fruit seller and was earning Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day. The Tribunal took his income at Rs.900/- per month and contribution to the family at Rs.600/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined a copensation of Rs.1,15,200/-. I will take the income of the deceased as Rs.15000/- per annum, make a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and provide for loss of dependence at Rs.10,000/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 17 suitable to the age of the deceased as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The loss of dependence would be Rs.1,70,000/-. I will provide for Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.2500/- to each one of the minor children for loss of love and affection. I will add another Rs.2500/- for loss to estate and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. In all the total compenstation that will become payable would be Rs.1,84,500/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. Cross objection No.11-CII of 1990 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Gurbachan Singh in FAO No.664 of 1989, who was aged about 34 years. He was a Constable in Haryana Police and was earning Rs.1570/- per month. The Tribunal took his contribution to the family at Rs.11340/- per annum, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined a copensation of Rs.1,81,400/-. I will FAO No.649 of 1989 -4- reappraise the compensation as per the formula suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The deceased was in Governement service and therefore, had a sure prospect of increase in salary. I will make an increase of 50% and take his average salary as Rs.2355/-. Since he was supporting a family of four persons, I will make a 1/4th deduction and take the contribution to the family at Rs.1766/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 16 suitable to the age of deceaced and the loss of dependence would come to Rs.3,39,072/-. I will add another Rs.11,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and conventional heads such as loss to estate and funeral expenses to round off the amount at Rs.3,50,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. Cross objection No.12-CII of 1990 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Mukhtiar Singh in FAO No.665 of 1989, who was aged about 30 years. He was a Constable in Haryana Police and was earning Rs.1286/- per month. The Tribunal took his contribution to the family at Rs.10,284/- per annum, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined a copensation of Rs.1,64,544/-. I will reappraise the compensation as per the formula suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The deceased was in Governement service and therefore, had a sure prospect of increase in salary. I will make an increase of 50% and take his average salary as Rs.1929/-. Since he was supporting a family of five persons, I will make a 1/4th deduction and take the contribution to FAO No.649 of 1989 -5- the family at Rs.1447/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 17 suitable to the age of deceaced and the loss of dependence would come to Rs.2,95,188/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.2500/- to each one of the minor children. I will add another Rs.2500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. That total amount that will become payable would be Rs.3,09,688/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed and the cross objections are allowed to the above extent and the liability shall be as determined by the Tribunal already. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 05, 2011 Pankaj*