IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No. 1108 of 1987 Mukhtiar Singh and others. ....... Appellants through Shri S.S.Salar, Advocate. Versus Punjab State and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 through Shri N.S.Virk, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Respondent no.3 & 5 through Nemo. (2) F.A.O. No. 1109 of 1987 Mohinder kaur ....... Appellant through Shri S.S.Salar, Advocate. Versus Punjab State and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 through Shri N.S.Virk, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Respondent no.3 & 5 through Nemo. Date of Decision: 25.11.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... F.A.O.No.1108 of 1987 -2- .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals which, although, have been preferred against different awards dated 19.3.1987 passed in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 116/78/36T of 1986-87 and 77/115/37T of 1986-87, yet the same pertain to one accident. On 29.4.1986, a motor vehicular accident took place in which Govinder Singh, aged about 20-1/2 years and Sukhwinder Singh aged about 24-1/2 years, lost their lives. Govinder Singh was said to be a promising student of B.Sc. (Agriculture) and was to obtain his degree in June,1987, while Sukwhinder Singh was a holder of degree of B.V.Sc. and A.H. And was undergoing internship at the time of his death. Separate claim petitions were preferred by the parents and sister of Govinder Singh and the mother of Sukhwinder Singh. In the case of Govinder Singh, it was proved on record that he was a student of some merit and was likely to be employed as Agriculture Inspector in the grade of Rs.750-1200/-. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed his income as Rs.1500/- and the dependency of the claimants as Rs.500/-. A multiplier of `16' was applied to award a compensation of Rs.96000/- to the claimants. In the case of Sukhwinder Singh, the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.1500/- and the dependency of the claimant as Rs.500/-, but applied the multiplier of `10' to award compensation of Rs.60000/- to her. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them, the claimants are in appeal. F.A.O.No.1108 of 1987 -3- .... There is no challenge to the issue of negligence and, therefore, the only question that is to be determined is as to what is the appropriate amount of compensation that should be awarded to the claimants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded to each set of the claimants is inadequate. In the case of Govinder Singh, the Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.1500/- per month, but considering the fact that the deceased would have joined regular service, he would have progressed in his career and thus, the future prospects also needed to be taken into consideration. Even if that were not so, even then, the Apex Court in Manju Rani and another Versus Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 A.C.J. 99 had taken the notional income of a boy, aged 13 years, who had died in an accident, at Rs.15000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of `15' to award compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to his parents. In view of the above, it would be safe to take the notional income of the deceased, who was a young boy of 20-1/2 years of age at Rs.2000/- per month. Looking from another angle, if the future prospects are taken into account, then the principle of assessing the income of a victim is to be followed, which is to the effect that the salary is to be doubled and then monthly salary is added to it and then the average of both the figures is taken as income per month. The Tribunal has assessed the income of Govinder Singh as F.A.O.No.1108 of 1987 -4- .... Rs.1500/- per month. If the aforesaid principle is applied, then the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.2250/- (1500 +1500 = 3000 + 1500 = 4500 divided by 2 = 2250). Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the notional income of deceased-Govinder Singh should be taken as Rs.2000/- per month, i.e., Rs.24000/- per annum. The deceased would have got married after some time and, therefore, a multiplier of `10' would be just and appropriate. In this way, the compensation payable to claimants in the case of Govinder Singh comes to Rs.2,40,000/- Another amount of Rs.10000/- deserves to be allowed on account of funeral expenses. Yet another sum of Rs.25000/- is awarded for loss of love and natural affection. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants in the case of Govinder Singh works out to Rs.2,75,000/- which is awarded to them. On the same analogy, as mentioned above, the claimant in the case of Sukhwinder Singh is awarded a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation as he was aged 24-1/2 years old at the time of his death and was doing internship after completing his degree in Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the F.A.O.No.1108 of 1987 -5- .... claim petitions till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned awards are modified to the above extent and the appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. November 25,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge