FAO No.142 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.142 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION: March 8, 2011 MADAN LAL ...APPELLANT VERSUS SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MR. AKASHDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2. MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. 2. FAO No.141 of 1988 BHANTI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MR. AKASHDEEP SINGH, ADVCOATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4 TO 7. MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. 3. FAO No.852 of 1988 RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS SHANTI DEVI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. AKASHDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5. FAO No.142 of 1988 -2- MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6. 4. FAO No.853 of 1988 RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS BHANTI AND OTHERS ...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: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. AKASHDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 8. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4. MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.9. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. All the appeals are connected. FAO No.141 of 1988 and FAO No.853 of 1988 relate to the death of a person by the name of Pehlad, who was aged 50. FAO No.142 of 1988 is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident and FAO No.852 of 1988 is against the grant of compensation for yet another person who died in the accident, namely, one Bhartu. There is no appeal by the owner and insurer against the award of compensation for the person who sustained injuries. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company appearing in FAO No.852 of 1988 and FAO No.853 of 1988 seeks for transposition of the insurance company as respondent and seek for FAO No.142 of 1988 -3- prosecution of the appeal by the owner of the truck only. The permission is granted in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George vs. N.K. Raju and another, reported as (2000) 4 SCC 130. The Registry shall carry out the amendment and take these cases as cases by the insured only. 3. The appeal by the owner is on the issue of negligence. It is a case where the truck was attempting to overtake some cattle on the road and at that time the deceased and the injured persons were crossing the road and met with the accident. I cannot apply any aspect of negligence for a pedestrian and the accident could not have been caused if the driver of the vehicle had been careful. I, therefore, uphold the finding of negligence as determined by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeals FAO No.852 of 1988 and FAO No.853 of 1988, filed by the owner. 4. As regards the assessment of compensation for death of Pehlad, the deceased as 50 years of age and the claimants were widow, son and daughter. He was said to be an ex-Chairman of Co-operative Milk Society and the evidence was that he had 7 buffaloes and that he was earning `3500/-. The Tribunal took the income to be `1000/- and took the contribution to be `600/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 to determine a compensation of `1,29,600/-. Learned counsel states that income must have been taken as `3500/-. I have no ground to accept this for, if the Tribunal had assumed the average income to have been `1000/- at the relevant time in the year 1988, I will retain the same. If the compensation were to be reworked taking the contribution to the family at `750/- and adopting a multiplier of 13, that would be suitable to the age of the deceased and also provide for the loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses as the FAO No.142 of 1988 -4- conventional sums totaling about another `10,000/-, this will be less than what has been determined by the Tribunal. I will, therefore, not make any modification as regards the same. 5. The appeal FAO No.141 of 1988 is dismissed 6. As regards the assessment of compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded FAO No.141 of 1988 is dismissed `17,000/-. He had suffered extensive injuries with fractures of 6,7 and 8 ribs and fracture at lower vertebra, fracture of the pubic bone and fracture of left iliac bone. He had been hospitalized on 2.8.1986 and remained as in-patient till 24.8.1996. The fracture of hip region and hospitalization must have been given enormous pain and suffering and I will rework the compensation enhancing the component for pain & suffering and providing for loss of income and tabulate the same as follows:- Injury Cases Age: Period of Hospitalization 2.8.86 to 24.8.86 Occupation & Income 700 Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Loss of income from to 3500 2. Medical Expenses: (i) Medicines 1500 1500 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 500 (iv) Special Diet 500 500 3. Transport - 4. Pain & Suffering – per fracture/per surgery 5000 25,000 5. Disability - 1 cm. 10% 10% 6. Loss of earning capacity FAO No.142 of 1988 -5- Injury Cases Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 7. Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities 10,000 15,000 8. Loss of prospect of marriage Total 17,000/- 46,000/- 7. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 8. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 9. FAO No.142 of 1988 is allowed with the modification as referred to above. March 8, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE