IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.38-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1236 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:14.03.2011 Surjit Singh ....Appellant versus Smt. Harbans Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Bawa, Advocate, for the claimants/cross objectors ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the award for claiming for compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded to parents for death of a child, who was 8 ½ years old. The accident was said to have taken place on 22.12.1987. The defence was that the vehicle had not been involved in the accident, but the Tribunal found the evidence of the claimants to be reliable as regards the involvement and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 2. There is no representation at the time when the matter is called and I have, therefore, proceeded to examine the case on the basis Cross Objection No.38-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1236 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - of the records and with the assistance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants. It was a case of a collision between a scooter in which the deceased was travelling along with father and a truck bearing registration No.PJB-6057 that admittedly belonged to the appellant. Although the respondent had denied the involvement of the vehicle neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle had been examined. The Tribunal, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant's vehicle was involved. As regards the determination of compensation for death of a child, who was 8 ½ years of age, the accident took place in the year 1987 and the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation. I enhance the amount by another Rs.50,000/- and hold the same to be liable to be paid by the respondents with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till date of payment. 3. The appeal is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 14.03.2011 sanjeev