F.A.O.NOs. 881 to 883 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 881 OF 1993 Date of decision:8th February, 2011 Raj Kumar Parbhakar .......Appellant Versus Suraj Mal and another ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 882 OF 1993 Raj Kumar Parbhakar .......Appellant Versus Suraj Mal and another ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 883 OF 1993 Virender Kumar Dogra .......Appellant Versus Union of India and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, Central Government Counsel for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?No F.A.O.NOs. 881 to 883 OF 1993 2 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. FAO No. 881 of 1993 is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. He was an executive in a private company. He had fracture of the left leg, right fore arm and the second and third finger of his right hand. He had a shortening of a limb by 1½ inches. Dr. B.K.Aggarwal, PW-2 had been examined who gave evidence about the lacerated injuries and the fractures that were immediately noticed at the time when he was brought to the general hospital Karnal. PW-5 was Dr. Ashok Kaul of PGI, gave evidence to the fact that he was admitted on 3.02.1990 and discharged on 4.02.1990. Dr. A.K.Pathak had issued a certificate to the effect that there was a shortening of his right leg by 1½ inches and he had undergone an operation to reduce his fracture. The Tribunal awarded `40,000/- as damages under the head of general or non-pecuniary damage and `10,000/- for a pecuniary damage said to be for an assessment of loss of his income. I find no basis for increasing the compensation and the appeal is dismissed as such. 2. FAO NO. 882 of 1993 is the claim by the Raj Kumar Parbhakar for the death of his wife for which the Tribunal had awarded `64,000/- as compensation. He was said to be 50 years of age and the Tribunal had taken the evidence that she was a house wife. I would take the householder's services contributed to the family at `2,000/- per month at that relevant time and adopt a F.A.O.NOs. 881 to 883 OF 1993 3 multiplier of 13 to hold the loss of the value of the services of the wife at `3,12,000/-. I will take `5,000/- towards loss of consortium and a further sum of `3,000/- towards funeral expenses and find the total compensation payable at `3,20,000/-. The amount in excess over over what has already been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 3. FAO NO. 883 of 1993 was similarly for death of house wife, who was said to be 25 years of age and the claimant was the husband and the son. I will apply the same yard stick as referred to above and add a further provision of `5,000/- for loss of love and affection for a child and finding total compensation at `3,25,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded `64,000/- as compensation and the amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be distributed equally between the husband and the son and the liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 8th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik