FAO No.905 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.905 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 24, 2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS KRISHNA & 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: MR. L.M. SURI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the insurer and the insured. Learned counsel seeks for permission to have the insurance company transposed as a respondent and prosecute the appeal at the instance of the insured only. I accord to him the right and direct that the appellant-National Insurance Company to be transposed as respondent No.5 and the appeal will be taken up as being prosecuted by the driver and the owner who will be reassigned as appellants No.1 and 2. 2. On the issue of quantum, learned counsel points out that the deceased was 42 years of age and the evidence of the son was, who was 22 years of age, that his father owned 7½ acres of land and he was also running a poultry farm consisting of about 2000 birds. Learned counsel points out FAO No.905 of 1992 -2- that 7½ acres of land continued to remain with them and they are cultivating the same. I find in the evidence that although he has stated that the land is being cultivated by them, he has also stated that his father used to do agriculture but not him and that they could only sell the products of the land. That method of assessing the loss arising by the death of an agriculturist has come through decision of this Court which have been dealt with in State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur, reported as 2003 3 SCC 484 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Charlie, reported as 2005 10 SCC 720, where it was pointed that if the land was still available, normally rule of deprivation of income was not directly applicable and the loss would be assessed only by the loss of managerial skills or the expenses that have to be incurred for securing the services of a person who could attend to agriculture in place of the deceased. Since the holding of land is over 7½ acres, I would feel inclined to take that managerial skills for such extent of land cannot be any less than the amount which the Tribunal has taken as loss arising from the land. Same way the poultry business requires care and expertise and at the time when he died the eldest son was 22 years of age and the other children were aged 17 and 15. If the Tribunal had taken the loss of income for the business in broilers at `20,000/-, I would still not think the amount to be excessive. In the ultimate bargain the Tribunal has only provided for a loss of dependency to the family at `35,000/- and it has adopted a multiplier of 16, I would retain the same. Although the values are little high, I do not think it is worthwhile for a reappraisal after nearly 20 years after the death of a person. What in one's perception could have been very high gets blunted over period of years. A contribution taken as `35,000/- for a whole year does not appear to be high, when the case is FAO No.905 of 1992 -3- examined in 2011. I will not, therefore, make any intervention as regards the quantum and maintain the same. 3. The appeal is dismissed. January 24, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE