FAO No.4611 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4611 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 24, 2010 NISHAN KAUR ...APPELLANT VERSUS MANMINDERJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. SUKHPREET KAUR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. SANDEEP SURI, ADVCOATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the award of `10,000/- for the death of the husband of the claimant. The deceased was an Army retired personnel and was a pensioner. He is said to have owned also 1½ acres of land and was cultivating the land and earning about `10,000/- per month. The accident had taken place on 19.5.2006 and he died on 7.7.2006. The claimant placed on record the details of injuries suffered by the deceased at the time of accident and had the Doctor examined to speak about the injuries found in the MLR certificate. 2. He had been referred to PGI from a Government hospital for better clinical management. The deceased was admitted in the hospital on FAO No.4611 of 2009 -2- 26.5.2006 and was discharged on the same day and the summary of the MLR reveals that he had a fracture of C4-5 and dislocation and it has also been noted there that the injury was dangerous to life. It is unfortunate that there has been not clear medical evidence to show that these injuries were sufficient to cause death. Learned counsel, however, points out that reference to the medical certificate that the injury was dangerous to life itself must have been taken to be sufficient for inferring that he died only due to the accident injury. If we notice that the death has resulted even within three weeks from the date of accident and it was not elicited that there were any other intervening factors unrelated to the injury that could have caused death, I lean in favour of the claimants for taking a view that the deceased died only due to the accident injury and that the injury was the most approximate cause for his death. 3. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal has awarded `10,000/- which was towards the transport expenses and loss of estate. I would take the annual income for the deceased notionally at `15,000/- over and above the pension which he was drawing and take the contribution to the wife at `10,000/- per annum. I will adopt a multiplier of 7 and take the loss of dependency at `70,000/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to loss of consortium at `5000/- and another `5000/- towards the funeral expenses. This amount of `80,000/- shall be in addition of what has been already determined by the Tribunal and shall also attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. December 24, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE