F.A.O NO. 1135 OF 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 1135 OF 1988 DECIDED ON : 05.02.2010 Shanti Devi and others ...Appellants versus Suresh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Ashwani K. Bura, Advocate for Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal directed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Shanti Devi-widow, Rita and Monika-minor daughters and Daya Devi-mother of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming an amount of Rs.2 lacs on account of death of Satpal Singh in a motor vehicular accident. It is pleaded that on 15.02.1987 at about 8:15 PM, Satpal was going to attend the rally of employees from Panipat to Bhiwani in truck No. DIL-7977. When the truck reached on the F.A.O NO. 1135 OF 1988 -2- Israna minor, one truck came from the opposite side being driven by respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. FIR No. 25 dated 15.02.1987 was registered. The deceased was aged about 30-31 years at the time of death. He died after 20 days of the accident on account of multiple injuries. He was employed with Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health, Sub Division No.3, Panipat on monthly salary of Rs.675/-. Claim of Rs.2 lacs has been made, including Rs.20,000/- spent on transportation, cremation of dead body and bhog ceremony. A sum of Rs.15,000/- has been claimed on account of treatment of the deceased. Respondent No.2-Harbans Lal is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections of locus standi; no cause of action. It is further pleaded that the claimants are not legal heirs of the deceased. It was further pleaded that in fact the front left side leave spring of the truck had broken and the same tilted towards the left side which caused impact on it. The deceased did not suffer any injury due to the accident. The amount claimed is exaggerated. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company took preliminary objection that the company is not liable to pay any amount, in as much as the truck was being driven without valid registration certificate, route permit, fitness certificate etc. It was further F.A.O NO. 1135 OF 1988 -3- pleaded that the truck was a commercial vehicle so the passengers were not covered under the policy. The Tribunal framed the following issues : 1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as alleged in the petition ? OPP 2) If Issue No.1 is proved, to what amount or compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3) Relief. The learned Tribunal returned the findings on Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants while deciding Issue No.2, it was held that the claimants are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.86,400/- and respondents No.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount. Respondent No.3 was absolved from the liability, relying upon certain authorities. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement. Harbans Lal-owner of the vehicle also preferred an appeal bearing F.A.O No. 1151 of 1988 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.09.2006. Now reverting to the enhancement of compensation to the claimants is concerned, in my view, the income taken by the F.A.O NO. 1135 OF 1988 -4- Tribunal is correctly assessed as Rs.673.55/- as the petitioners have themselves produced the salary certificate to that effect. Otherwise also, counsel for the appellants has not disputed the income of the deceased. However, he has submitted that since the claimants were four in number, so the cut imposed by the Tribunal to the extent of 1/3rd is on the higher side relying upon the authority “Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr.” 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the cut should have been imposed to the extent of 1/4th. The said contention carries weight and has to be accepted. So in this manner, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.675/- by rounding the figure, the dependency comes to Rs.506.25/-. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal at the age of 32 i.e 16 is inconsonance with Sarla Verma's case (supra). So in this manner, the yearly dependency comes to Rs.6075/- (506.25 x 12). By applying the multiplier of 16, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.97,200/-. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the deceased remained in hospital from 15.02.1987 to05.03.1987. No amount has been granted by the Tribunal regarding his treatment and other misc. expenses. No doubt he was a government employee, but the Tribunal should have given some amount regarding the expenses incurred by the claimants. So the amount in this respect is calculated as Rs.7000/-. F.A.O NO. 1135 OF 1988 -5- No amount has been granted in respect of loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses. So, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.10,000/- in this regard. In this manner, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.1,14,200/-. The Tribunal has allowed an amount of Rs.86,400/- so the enhanced amount of Rs.27,800/- is ordered to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till its realisation. The enhanced amount shall be paid in the same ratio, as awarded by the Tribunal. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 05, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE