FAO No. 519 of 1995(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 519 of 1995(O&M) Date of decision May 13,2011 Kaushalya Devi (through L.Rs) and others ....Appellants Versus Dina Nath and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta , Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 2. None for respondent Nos.1 and 3. K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of petition for compensation for death of a person aged 25 years. He was a sub editor in Indian Express. By impact of the insured's vehicles on collision with a rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling, he was thrown off the rickshaw and by falling on ground due to heavy impact he suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to them. The Tribunal accepted the involvement of the vehicle but held that negligence had not been proved. I find this to be a perverse approach where a person is thrown out of the vehicle and gets killed it must have been taken to be res ipsa loquitur situation and found that the driver of the insured's vehicle was responsible for the accident. I, therefore, set aside the finding regarding the issue of negligence and hold that the insured's vehicle was responsible for the accident and the driver had been guilty of rashness and negligence. 2. On the issue of quantum the deceased was a young person drawing a salary of `3,741/. The contention of the appellant is that he had a bright future and his death was condoled by prominent persons such as Governors of all the three States. Learned counsel therefore states that provision must have also been made for prospect of FAO No. 519 of 1995(O&M) 2 future increase of income. Although, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 provides for a provision for future increase in cases of employment with security of tenure, the said judgment does not rule out exceptional situations when such a provision could be made. I would take this to be such a circumstance when I will find such a justification for such an increase and find the average income must be enhanced by 50% of what he was earning and hence take the salary to be `5610/-. Since the claimants were a parent and a young sibling, I will make a deduction of 50% and take the contribution to the family at `2805/-. The mother has however died during the pendency of the case. I will apply therefore, the multiplier of 11 and find the loss of dependency at `3,70,260/- make a further addition for the conventional heads of claim to round of the amount at `3,80,000/-. 50% of the amount will be paid to the brother who was made party to the petition at the time of of filing of the petition and the remaining amount will be paid to all the legal heirs who have been added subsequent to the filing of the appeal before this Court. 3. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on the Insurance Company for satisfying the claimants. 4. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 13,2011 archana