FAO No.1374 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1374 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: January 12, 2011 MUKESH KUMAR DIDYANIA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS BABU RAM AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 2. FAO No.1378 of 1989 MUKESH KUMAR DIDYANIA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS BABU RAM AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. DEEPAK SURI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. ANIL RANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2. MR. VINOD GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeals are against dismissal of petitions for compensation for a case where the deceased were parents of the claimants. They were said to be travelling in a Maruti van that dashed against the stationary truck. The evidence was given by one of the passengers in the van. The Tribunal found that the driver of the Maruti van was himself responsible for the accident and dismissed the claim petitions. In my view, the Tribunal ought not have found the whole responsibility on the deceased driver of the Maruti van, especially in a case where a driver and the owner of the stationary truck was not examined to refute the contention that the vehicle was parked in the FAO No.1374 of 1989 -2- middle of the road. The Motor Vehicles Act itself prohibits the parking of the car on a highway in a dangerous position under Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I will not, therefore, take the responsibility for the accident to be merely rested on the owner-driver of the Maruti van, but I will apportion an equal responsibility for the owner and driver of the truck which had been stationary and against which the Maruti van had dashed. 2. As regards the claim the compensation, the Tribunal had assessed the amount of compensation payable at `72,000/-, but still dismissed it in view of the finding rendered by it that the driver of the Maruti van had himself contributed to the accident. The evidence was that the deceased-father was a jeweller and that he was earning `2000/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at `800/- per month and took the contribution towards his family at `500/- per month. I would take the income `1000/- per month and take the contribution to the family at `750/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 14 and hold the extent of loss of dependency at `1,26,000/-. I would add `7500/- as loss of love and affection for the children and provide for a further sum of `5000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation payable will be `1,38,500/- out of which the amount that would become payable will be `69,250/-, having regard to the finding already rendered that the deceased must be found to be equally responsible for the accident that is, as having contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. The amount of compensation as determined shall also bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The entitlement of compensation shall be amongst all the claimants equally. 3. As regards the claim for compensation for death of the mother FAO No.1374 of 1989 -3- which is the subject matter in FAO No.1378 of 1989, the deceased was a housewife and she was also said to be earning by selling milk, I would take the contribution to the family, in case where they were several minor children, at `750/- for the value of her household services and determine the same compensation as has been determined for the death of her husband and hold that the claimants shall be entitled to `1,38,500/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. As regards the passenger in the case, it was a case of composite negligence and hence would not make any abatement of claim, as was done for the death of her husband, who by negligence had contributed to the accident. The liability shall be on the insurance company and the entitlement of compensation of the claims shall be distributed amongst the claimants. 4. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent. January 12, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE