IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.69 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:28.02.2011 Smt. Kulbir Kaur ....Appellant versus Rulda Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Ms. Reeta Kohli, AAG, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 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 for enhancement of claim for compensation for the death of a male, aged 29 years. The claimants were widow and aged parent of the deceased. The widow claimed that her husband was a medical practitioner in Electropathy-Electro-homoeopathy Practitioner and was also running a poultry farm, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In support of the contention that he was a homoeopathy practitioner, a certificate had been produced to the said effect. The Tribunal rejected the evidentiary value as of no substance and took his status as a matriculate and assessed the compensation on the basis that even a FAO No.69 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - matriculate could have earned at least Rs.1,500/- and adopted a multiplier of 16. If oral assertion is made about the status and source of income and a documentary corroboration is brought, there ought to be no reason to reject it wholesale and treat his income as obtaining only as a matriculate. I will take him to be a homoeopathy practitioner, take his income at Rs.3,000/-, make a deduction of 1/3rd and adopt a multiplier of 17 instead of 16 as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121 and take the loss of dependency at Rs.4,08,000/-. I will also make the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium of loss to estate and funeral expenses and tabulate the claim of compensation as below:- Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1. Income 1500 3000 2. Add, % of increase 50% 3. Deduction 1/3 1/3 4. Multiplicand 1000x12 2000x12 5. Multiplier 16 17 6. Loss of dependence 4,08,000 7. Loss of consortium 5,000 8. Loss to estate 5,000 9. Funeral expenses. 2,500 _____ _______ Total 1,92,000 4,20,500 2. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal already, shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. FAO No.69 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - 3. It would seem necessary to bring the curtains down to this long chapter of litigation with a brief epilogue. The matter had gone through a Lok Adalat, where, without going through nitty gritty of evidence, the Lok Adalat had suggested an increase of Rs.68,000/- to the claimant widow. I have seen from the record that several conferences had been held and high level officers no less than the Secretary to the State and a Directorate of the Transport Department had been actively involved, coming to Lok Adalats to and fro, only to express their inability to close in on a meaningful compromise. It has been a painful reality that the State is a major litigant in Courts. The State policy that seeks to quell long drawn litigation will come to cipher if high level officers would take time to come to Court, engage in lengthy confabulations and ultimately express their inability to come to terms. Compromises can happen only if there is a will. If we must consign to Courts as the only institution which should deliver justice and injustice could visit actions of the bureaucracy with careless abandon, the ultimate sufferers will be the litigants. An additional amount of Rs.68,000/- which was suggested, was perhaps the most reasonable and modest proposal from a Lok Adalat. No one can compel a party to settle; nor indeed a Lok Adalat deliver a judgment to an unwilling party to be bound. It shall be the duty of the Court to make possible what these institutions cannot some times do. The ultimate dispensation gets to be therefore an award which is four times of what was suggested 11 years back. We will keep waiting for days to change; they may not. If they do, they will be after a painfully long drawn litigation. The appeal is FAO No.69 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - allowed with compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/- against the respondents. The liability shall be on the State-2nd and 3rd respondents. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.02.2011 sanjeev