IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.438 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:12.01.2011 Mohinder Kaur ....Appellant versus M/s Azad Nakodar Bus Service (P) Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. None for respondents 1, 2, 4 to 6. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The case is of the year 1988 but there is no representation for the appellant. I do not want to detain the case by an adjournment even in the absence of the counsel nor do I think it will be appropriate to dismiss it for default. I hasten to examine the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and to proceed to pass the following order. 2. The claim for compensation arose on account of death of one Shabeg Singh, aged 60 years. The vehicle i.e. bus had fallen into a river and it was a clear case of negligence of the driver of the bus. There were two claim petitions filed, one at the instance of Mohinder Kaur and another at the instance of Baljit Kaur, both of them claiming to be the FAO No.438 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - wives of Shabeg Singh. The Tribunal found that Mohinder Kaur had been married earlier and the contention of Baljit Kaur to the extent that he had divorced Mohinder Kaur, was found to be not established. The Tribunal, however, awarded compensation also to the children born through Baljit Kaur. While ascertaining compensation, it took the income as Rs.1,330.30 paise on the basis of the salary certificate and noticed that he had been given an extension in service for a period of five years after his retirement in the year 1983. Considering the age and salary of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same was directed to be divided equally amongst all the heirs. This, in my view, is a wrong approach. Since he was earning Rs.1,330.30 paise, I would provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family at Rs.866/-. Since he was aged 60 when he had also an employment, I would provide for a multiplier of 9 and take the extent of loss of dependency at Rs.93,528/- which I round off to Rs.93,600/-. I will make an additional amount of Rs.6,400/- towards the conventional heads of claim and take the compensation payable at Rs.1 lakh. The accident had taken place on 11.03.1986 at a time when the liability for a third party for anyone accident was Rs.1,50,000/-. The Insurance Company would, therefore, be liable for the amount upto Rs.1,50,000/- and a restriction of liability could not have been taken as merely for Rs.15,000/-. The entitlement for the additional compensation will be available to Mohinder Kaur, Gurbhej Kaur and Rajbir Kaur equally. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. FAO No.438 of 1988 (O&M) - 3 - 3. Having regards to the fact that the party-appellant is not before the Court, Registry is directed to despatch the copy of the order to the appellant at the address mentioned in the memo of parties. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.01.2011 sanjeev