FAO No.361 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.361 of 2009 Date of Decision. 27.01.2011 Smt. Ram Piari aged 40 years widow of Bhajan Lal and others ......Appellants Versus Balwant Kumar son of Mange Ram and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Nain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 6. None for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of one Bhajan Lal, who was an agriculturist who was said to have owned 10 kanals of land. He was already said to be earning an additional income through dairy farming and the evidence led by the wife was that her husband was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. As regards the income from agricultural land where the estate is still available, the evidence must be in relation to how the family is deprived by the death of a person and for the value of his services to ascertain what ought to have been provided. I cannot enter into any conjecture with reference to FAO No.361 of 2009 -2- the same unless there is specific evidence for the same. Mere evidence relating to the income from the agricultural land is hardly sufficient and not really the evidence that is necessary in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie 2005(19) SCC 720. In the latter case, the Court was actually reducing the compensation, which was taken on the basis that a person who was earning Rs.4500/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the normal rule of deprivation of income cannot be strictly applicable in cases where the land was still available and the claimants were only complaining that services of the bread winner of the family would not be available. I cannot, therefore, fault an estimation of income that had been taken by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/-. I will retain the same. The learned counsel argues that 1/3rd deduction was clearly erroneous in a case where the claimants were wife, unmarried daughter and two sons. I would take a deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as taken by the Tribunal and take the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.2250/- and adopt a multiplier of 13 to hold the loss of dependence at Rs.3,51,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and it has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife. I will retain the same. The Tribunal has also provided for Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses which also I will retain. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that Rs.70,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal for medical expenses and hospital charges are high. I will not entertain such a plea from the insurer without a proper legal basis for the same. FAO No.361 of 2009 -3- The overall compensation will be Rs.4,36,000/-. The amount in excess over has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 2. The award of the Tribunal stands modified and enhanced as above. The amount shall be distributed equally amongst the claimants. The liability amongst the respondents will also be the same as observed by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2011 Pankaj*