FAO No.423 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.423 of 1993 Date of Decision. 24.12.2010 Gita Devi and others ......Appellants Versus Baru driver son of Sh. Ranak Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The appeal is at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The accident had taken place at the time when the deceased Kishan Lal, who was also driving his car died when his vehicle came in collision with the insured's vehicle. PW-7, one of the witness cited by the claimants admitted in his evidence that the accident had taken place when the deceased was taking over Haryana Roadways bus and at that time, respondent's vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction dashed against it. The Tribunal considered the case in the light of situation of head on collision and further from the fact that the accident had taken place at the time when the deceased was overtaking yet another bus and it was his own FAO No.423 of 1993 -2- poor judgment that caused the accident. The driver of the insured's vehicle was also examined to give evidence about the fact that the accident taken place on the left side of the road in which he was driving and at a time when the deceased was overtaking yet another bus. An accident taken place while overtaking is invariably a situation where some amount of negligence must be attributed for the person, who is overtaking another vehicle and comes to harm. The Tribunal has apportioned the extent of negligence as 50:50 between the deceased and the driver of the insured's vehicle and I see no reason to differ from such a finding. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation payable, the deceased was an income tax assessee, having been a partner in M/s Jain Electrical Sales Corporation, Delhi and partnership deed had been produced through witness PW3 Ram Chander, who was the brother of the deceased. He was also one of the partners in M/s Jindal Electric and Machinery Store, Delhi and the said partnership deed was also produced as PW4/A. PW-5 Hukam Chand was an accountant and he stated that Kishan Lal was an active partner and while the other persons were sleeping partners. He had been regularly maintained his accounts and it was stated that his income was Rs.28,870/- per annum for the assessment year 1991. The Tribunal had taken the entire income as found in the accounts, adopted a multiplier of 16 and ascertained the amount of Rs.4,41,920/- and caused abatement to the tune of 50% for the contributory negligence attributed to him. If the case were to be taken for reappraisal, it could have been only in the manner of appreciation of his income proof and the deduction that will FAO No.423 of 1993 -3- be possible. The Tribunal actually had made no deduction for personal expenses but had taken the entire proof of income adduced before the Tribunal namely Rs.28,870/- as the multiplicand and adopted multiplier of 16. I cannot, therefore, subject the issue of loss of dependence to any greater advantage than how the Tribunal had done. However, I find that the Tribunal has not provided for the conventional heads of claim namely for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection for the children which I will take as aggregated to Rs.15,000/-, provide for Rs.5,000/- as loss to estate and provide for another Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. This would mean a further addition of Rs.25000/-, which I will take to represent the amount even after factoring the issue of contributory negligence and I will make no further abatement for the said sum. The additional amount of Rs.25,000/- shall also bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2010 Pankaj*