IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.599 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:12.01.2011 State of Haryana ....Appellant versus Sanjeev Kumar and another ..Respondents II. FAO No.841 of 1989 (O&M) Sanjeev Kumar ....Appellant versus Mohan Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for the appellant in FAO No.599 of 1989 and for respondent No.2 in FAO No.841 of 1989, Advocate, for the appellant. None for others. ---- 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) 1. Both the appeals are of the year 1989 and in FAO No.841 of 1989, there is no representation for the claimant/appellant. The appeal in FAO No.599 of 1989 is at the instance of the State against the finding of negligence in the same case and I have proceeded to examine the case FAO No.599 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - with the assistance of the counsel for the State, who is the appellant in FAO No.599 of 1989. In this case, the Tribunal found that the driver of the State bus to be wholly responsible for the accident, having regard to the oral evidence let in that the driver of the bus had taken to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooter, which was coming on the left side of the road. The learned counsel for the State would contend that since it was a head-on collision on a broad road, the Tribunal must have seen that the negligence was if at all on both the drivers and the State Corporation alone ought not to have been made liable for the act of his driver. I would not accept this contention for the only reason that the case was dealt with on the basis of specific evidence led by the claimant to show that the driver of the bus was coming to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooterist. The finding of the negligence and the liability cast on the State will, therefore, be required to be upheld. 2. In FAO No.841 of 1989, the claimant had suffered spinal injuries and the disability assessed was 100%. He was a matriculate and was said to be a Contractor. Evidence was through one Ram Rakha, Accounts Clerk, Municipal Committee, to say that he was a registered Contractor, but since there was no documentary evidence, the Tribunal took the income to be Rs.650/- per month against a claim on the behalf of the claimant that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Taking the age to be 22 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16. I adopt a multiplier of 18 and take the loss of earning capacity at Rs.1,40,400/- against Rs.1,25,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had FAO No.599 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, which I will retain. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering, which also I will retain. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.48,000/- as attendant charges by adopting a multiplier of 10 at Rs.3,000/- taking as an annual expenses. Here again I apply a multiplier of 18 and take the expenses to be Rs.54,000/- against Rs.48,000/- determined by the Tribunal. The compensation payable would be Rs.3,05,400/- against Rs.2,84,000/-. The amount in excess of what has been determined by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The appeal in FAO No.841 of 1989 is allowed to the above extent. 4. The appeal filed by the State in FAO No.599 of 1989 shall stand dismissed. Since the party in FAO No.841 of 1989 is not present in Court either in person or through counsel, the order copy shall be sent to the party directly by the Registry. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.01.2011 sanjeev