FAO No.938 of 1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. FAO No.938 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2011 Smt. Lata Sharma and another ... Appellants Versus Sh. Amandeep Singh and Ors. ... Respondents II. FAO No.174 of 1998 (O&M) Chandigarh Administration ... Appellant Versus Lata Sharma and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, the appellants in FAO No.938 of 1998 and for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No.174 of 1998. Mr. Kushaldup S. Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No.938 of 1998 and for respondents No.3 and 4 in FAO No.174 of 1998. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in FAO No.938 of 1998 and for respondent No.5 in FAO No.174 of 1998. None for the appellant in FAO No.174 of 1998 and none for respondent No.4 in FAO No.938 of 1998. ***** 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? K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) FAO No.938 of 1998 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death FAO No.938 of 1998 (O&M) -2- of a male leaving behind his widow and a minor child. The deceased is said to have been a PWD Contractor and the contention by the widow was that her husband used to earn `12,000/- per month. The documents from PWD were brought to show that the payment of `14,62,219/- had been made for the year 1992-93 and the TDS deducted was `35,333/-. The claimants had not filed any Income Tax Returns and there was no scope for the Tribunal to take the payment made by the PWD itself as the income of the deceased. The amount could have only represented the value of contract and the income must be on a particular percentage which was the margin that the Contractor had in the value of the contract. If the claimants had not filed documents of this income such as Income Tax Returns, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income as less than the taxable limit and proceeding to assess the compensation. 2. For an accident that had taken place in the year 1993, the Tribunal took the monthly income at `5,000/-, made a deduction of `1,700/- for personal expenses of the deceased and took the contribution to the family at `3,300/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 15 to determine the compensation at `5,94,000/-. 3. Learned counsel states that the deceased was only 38 years of age at the time of death but the Tribunal had wrongly taken the age as 48. Even if the age was only 38, the maximum multiplier possible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6), SCC 121”, would have been only 15. I do not find any fault even with the value of the multiplicand which is sum after deduction of personal expenses. The loss of dependency assessed at `5,94,000/- cannot be faulted. 4. Learned counsel is, however, correct in pointing out that the FAO No.938 of 1998 (O&M) -3- Tribunal had not assessed any amount towards conventional heads of claims, such as loss of consortium to the widow, loss of love and affection for the child and loss to estate and funeral expenses. I will take the loss of consortium for the widow at `5,000/-, loss of love and affection for child at `2,500/-, loss to estate at `5,000/- and funeral expenses at `2,500/-. The total additional amount payable would be `15,000/- and the same shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 6. The liability shall be only on the Insurer and the driver. The claimants shall have a right of enforcement against the Insurer. However, the Tribunal has directed the compensation be paid also by Chandigarh Administration. The direction contained in the award is subject to appeal in FAO No.174 of 1998. II. FAO No.174 of 1998 7. The liability was sought to be fastened by the claimant on the Chandigarh Administration by so called negligence of the Corporation in not taking care of the proper maintenance of a bridge that was said to be the cause for the accident. While the issue of negligence for improper maintenance of the bridge could be a subject of a civil litigation, as far as a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, Section 166 sets out the persons against whom the compensation could be awarded. It shall not be possible to make liable in the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act any person other than the owner, driver or the Insurer. The claim against the Chandigarh Administration was not justified and the award passed was erroneous. The FAO No.938 of 1998 (O&M) -4- appeal filed by the Chandigarh Administration is allowed and the liability cast against it is set aside. MAY 27, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE