FAO No. 275 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.55 of 1994 FAO No. 275 of 1994 Date of decision February 10, 2011 Bhim Sain ....... Appellant Versus Parmeshwari Devi and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. M. Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surinder Singh , Advocate for the respondents. **** 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 by the owner denying the issue of negligence and contesting a claim for compensation awarded at `1,15,200/-. The counsel appearing for the appellant would rely on alleged statement made by the deceased that no body was responsible for the accident. I am not prepared to examine the issue of negligence at this length of time. I hold strict liability to be enforced against owner and driver of the vehicle whose vehicle was admittedly involved in the accident and the death was also taken to be resultant to the injuries suffered in the accident. 2. There is also a cross objection for enhancement of compensation awarded for a death resulting from the injuries. He was in the hospital for sometime before he died. Dr. Neelu Baichoo, of PGI appeared as PW-3 and Dr. K.K. Chawla was examined as PW-1 for proof of MLR from the time of accident to the death. There were no other FAO No. 275 of 1994 2 interfering circumstance, therefore I have no difficulty to hold that it was only the accident injuries that ultimately resulted in death. The evidence on behalf of the claimants were that the deceased was selling ice and for nine months earning `3,000/- per month and during the remaining months he used to sell small articles like bangles etc., and was earning the same income. The widow who spoke about the income was cross examined with reference to the income status and the Court had observed that the witness did not know what `3,000/- meant and how many hundreds made a thousand. That was in some way explaining how some of the rural women are so totally dependent on their husbands that they have themselves no concept of what the money was. She must have gone through the travails of bringing up her four minor children but they must have grown over the period. I will not take this to be a justification to take the income to be nearly `900/- for a man who was supporting his wife and children. I would take the income as `2,000/- per month and after 1/4th deduction and take contribution to the family as `1500/-. He was 40 years of age as spoken by the wife. She was herself 40 years at that time of evidence and since evidence was given a year after the accident, I would assume that her assumption of her husband's age was also correct. I will adopt a multiplier of 15 and also add notional sums for conventional heads like loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses in the manner suggested by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 The compensation tabulated is as under:- S.No. Head of claim Amount 1 Loss of dependency `2,70,000/- 2 Loss of consortium `15,000/- 3 Loss to estate `2,500/- 4 Funeral expenses `2,000/- Total `2,89,500/- FAO No. 275 of 1994 3 The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The increased amount of compensation shall be distributed equally between the widow and children. The cross objection is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 10 , 2011 archana