FAO No.1740 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1740 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 24.02.2011 Devinder Syal son of Raj Kumar and another ......Appellants Versus Mandeep Kaur widow of Jagraj Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashu Mohan Punchhi, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the owner and driver against whom the award was passed upholding the claim that the vehicle had been involved in the accident when the appellants' vehicle was towing a tractor. The FIR had been lodged by one Manjit Singh Mann, who was said to be a pillion rider to the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle. The accident was alleged to have taken place on 6.10.2008 at 4 PM and the FIR had been lodged immediately thereafter referring to the involvement of the appellant's vehicle. Even in the FIR, it had been mentioned that the accident had taken place by the rash and negligent driving of the truck when he came on to the main road from the side road and when the motorcyclist struck against the chain which was towing the tractor. 2. The driver denied the accident and had stated that the vehicle was stationary and the accident had taken place by the FAO No.1740 of 2011 (O&M) -2- motorcyclist hitting against yet another motorcyclist. The Tribunal rejected the contention on the ground that if there had been collision with another vehicle, the rider of another motor cycle also must have been injured. The Tribunal also found that the FIR had been lodged immediately after the accident and there was no possibility for such FIR with totally imaginary particulars, unless it had been true. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would state that there was vital admission of the person, who had lodged the FIR in his statement before the Tribunal that there was no vehicle in tow to the truck. Learned counsel refers to the suggestion in the cross examination of PW2 in the following words:- “It is wrong that there was tow in between Tata 407 and tractor trolley.” 4. It should be read in the proper context for it seems like a wrong recording of a suggestion. The same cross examination as it has proceeded along, records as follows:- “The police has recorded my statement. It is correct that I got recorded in my statement with the police that motor cycle had struck against the chain towed. This accident has occurred due to towing of tractor by TATA 407. It is wrong to say that the accident did not occur due to the fault of respondent No.4. It is also wrong that I deposed falsely. It is wrong that the tractor was not being towed by Tata 407.” 5. It is an elementary rule of evidence and the evidence must be read as a whole and shall not be truncated. I find the denial of accident by the appellants is not correct and the Tribunal had come to the FAO No.1740 of 2011 (O&M) -3- correct conclusion with reference to its involvement and awarded the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also challenges the issue of quantum by saying that the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.6400/- and provided for a compensation making a deduction of 1/3rd when the claimant wife was herself a teacher earning about Rs.13,000/-. According to him, dependence could not have been as high for the wife who was herself earning. I will reject this contention also, for in a situation of both spouses earning, the death of a person ought not to be seen only in the context of how the other surviving spouse has been deprived of the dependence. On the other hand, the issue is not merely one of financial dependence. In such type of situations, there is a larger pool for the family to draw upon for improvement in their quality of lives. The death of a person prematurely would constitute therefore a reduction of the high quality of living and also cause a reduction in the sum of savings that would become possible, which in turn may have an immediate bearing to the loss to estate. If it is not loss of dependence, it is a loss to estate that would occasion to a surviving spouse. I would not, therefore, make any deviation from the normal rule of deductions. 7. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 24, 2011 Pankaj*