IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1648 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011 Savinderjit Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Baldev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate,with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. KBS Kang, Advocate, for the appellants None for respondents 1, 4 and 5. Mr. R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 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.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim at the instance of a widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased, who was aged 41 to 45 years. The deceased was running a concern called M/s Taluja Trading Company. He was a Mechanical Engineer graduate from Punjab University. FAO No.1648 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The claimant had filed income tax assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. In all these assessment orders, the status of the assessee had been given as RF which the Tribunal described to mean a Registered Firm. The attempt in the course of the trial was to say that it was a proprietary concern and a copy of the certificate issued by the bank was filed to show that the account was being operated by the deceased as a proprietor of M/s Taluja Trading Company. In the course of trial, the wife of the deceased said that it was originally a partnership firm and her father-in-law was a party, but later since he became old, it was carried on as proprietary concern. The Tribunal, while considering the document, found that there was no proof that it was a proprietary concern, made an observation to the effect that the claimant did not take the courage to examine any of the officers from the Company and also found that if the partnership had been dissolved and was being run as a proprietary concern, the claimant had not filed the resolution deed of the partnership. 3. In a summary proceeding where the relevant documents were there before the Tribunal and a witness gives an explanation that her husband was carrying on the business as a proprietor, I will let it rest there and will not engage in needless doubt, in the manner in which the Tribunal has approached. While rejecting the certificate by the bank that the account was being managed as a proprietor of the firm, the Tribunal has observed that it does not specify the requirement of Evidence Act. The Tribunal had also looked for witnesses from the Income Tax Department to prove the assessment orders. I think it is a needless FAO No.1648 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - formality. It is necessary that the Tribunal looks to proof of documents where they are doubtful and the procedural requirements of the Evidence Act could be invoked in appropriate cases. I will, however, stretch it even to test the correctness of IT returns or IT assessment orders that bear the seal of the officers, who have issued the orders. The assessment orders that bear the seal would satisfy the test of Section 76 of the Evidence Act and would have required no further proof. If the status of the individual either as a partner or an individual were to be tested in the light of evidence, I will take the evidence of the wife as sufficient to conclude the issue. The deceased was an engineer graduate and the testimonial, which had been filed as A3, showed that he had a consistent brilliant academic record and he was a honours' graduate with a gold medal. To doubt the abilities to such a person to run a business to return an income of Rs.40,000/- per year is a needless attempt by the Tribunal which I will discard. I will take the average income to be Rs.40,000/-, provide for 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.30,000/- and adopt a multiplier of 14 to determine the loss of dependency at Rs.4,20,000/-. I will also add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.2,500/- each for two minor children. I will also provide for Rs.10,000/- as loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the total sum would come to Rs.4,42,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,54,000/- and the amount in excess shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. FAO No.1648 of 1992 (O&M) - 4 - 4. The amount found additionally as payable shall be distributed amongst the wife and the two sons equally. The liability amongst the respondents shall be in the same manner as found by the Tribunal. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.01.2011 sanjeev