FAO No.228 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.228 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: January 28, 2011 SUKHDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ANIL KUMAR 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? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. VISHAL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENS NO.1 TO 3. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4. MR. R.K. BASHAMBOO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against dismissal of the petition for compensation in a case where there was a collision between a Maruti Car and a truck insured with the respondent No.5 before this Court, the Oriental Insurance Company. The dismissal of the petition was occasioned by the fact that apart from the filing of FIR the claimant had adduced no evidence and the Tribunal, therefore, observed the negligence as not being established. I would have expected the Tribunal to at least refer to the details in the FIR as basis to proceed with the case instead of merely rejecting the case of the claimant by a laconic appraisal that negligence had not been established. FAO No.228 of 2006 -2- The complaint was given by Rulda Singh and he had stated that he was an eye witness to the the accident when he saw a TATA-407 truck was being driven at a very high speed and it was approaching from the side of Dasuya and without blowing the horn hit the Maruti car due to which the driver as well as the passenger in the car were seriously injured and he had taken them to the hospital. He had also noticed that the driver of TATA-407 truck himself had been injured and he had also accompanied him to the hospital. While the issue of negligence cannot merely be concluded by giving of a complaint, I will take recitals in the FIR as at least affording an initial proof about how the accident had taken place and what the immediate information was as regards the negligence of any person. It is a matter of record that in respect of very same accident yet another claim arising out of the claim had been prosecuted before same very Tribunal and in that case the eye witness has also been examined and the Tribunal had awarded compensation for death and attributed the negligence to the driver of the truck. There cannot dissimilar awards of the same Tribunal from the same accident. I have no information that there has been any appeal filed against the other award, but I will take that to be sufficient to hold that the negligence of the driver of the truck as having been established and set aside the finding to the contrary by the Tribunal. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased was an Engineer working in a State Government undertaking and the income proof on record was that he was earning `16,175/- per month. I will provide for 30% increase as prospect of increase in salary and take the average salary to be `21,027/-. Having regard to the fact that it is relatively a higher income, I will provide for a deduction of 15% as going towards tax and take the FAO No.228 of 2006 -3- average income to be `17,873/-. I will provide for 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at `11,915/- per month. He was 42 years of age, I will provide a multiplier of 14 and take the loss of dependency at `20,01,720/-. I will add 5000/- towards loss to consortium to the wife and another `5000/- for loss of love and affection for the child. I will provide for an additional amount of `10,000/- towards loss to estate and `2500/- towards funeral expenses. The claimant had also filed on record medical bills to the tune of `92,475/- which I accept in toto. The total amount of compensation payable will be `21,16,695/- rounded of `21,16,700/-. The amount of compensation shall also attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount of entitlement of compensation shall be in the ratio of 2:2:1. As regards the share of the mother, the whole amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn. As regards the remaining amount that represents the share of the widow and the daughter, having regard to the fact that I have adopted a multiplier of 14 and the accident had taken place in 2002, I will allow for 60% of the amount to be withdrawn and the remaining 40% shall be kept in deposit in a bank for a further period of 5 years split into 5 equal shares, the first share for the 1st year, second for the 2nd year and so on upto 5 years. They shall be paid to the claimants on the respective dates of maturity. The liability shall be on the insurance company as an insurer for the truck TATA-407 insured, with the Oriental Insurance Company. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 28, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE