F.A.O.No. 1309 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 1309 of 1989 & Cross-Ob.No.4-CII of 1990 Date of decision : 24.9.2008 Smt. Raj Rani and another ....Appellant Versus Gurmail Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.G.S.Bawa, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent/cross-objector. ... MAHESH GROVER,J. (Oral) This order will dispose of F.A.O.No.1309 of 1989 and cross-objections bearing No.4-CII of 1990. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants, whereas the cross-objections have been preferred by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. truck No.HCX-3231. The claimants have prayed for enhanced compensation. Rs.72,000/- were awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of Desh Deepak aged 24 years in a vehicular accident which took place on 29.8.1988. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle in cross- F.A.O.No. 1309 of 1989 -2- objections has assailed the finding on the issue of negligence. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate if the finding regarding negligence as raised in the cross-objections is determined first. According to the claimants, and the overwhelming evidence brought in support of the claim petition as also the testimony of RW1 Gurmail Singh it stands established that deceased Desh Deepak was travelling in a jeep and sitting on the right hand side of the driver. The offending truck came from the opposite side and hit the deceased who was sitting on the right hand side of the driver of the jeep and as a result of the injuries sustained he died. The evidence also shows that the jeep was open from the sides. In this view of the matter, when it is established on record that the deceased was sitting on the right hand side of the driver, which is not the appropriate place for any passenger to sit, it is apparent that he was guilty of contributing to the accident because the occupant who sits on the right hand side of the driver is likely to protrude out of the vehicle. It has also come in the testimony of RW1 Gurmail Singh that he had seen the jeep from some distance and when he was about 100 yards away he had given a signal by switching on the lights implying thereby that he wanted to proceed first. Once the driver of the offending vehicle had seen that the jeep was occupied by a number of persons as suggested by him, then in such an eventuality, a greater care and caution was cast upon him so as to ensure that the truck did not come within the grazing distance of the jeep so as to F.A.O.No. 1309 of 1989 -3- avoid any collision with it or its occupant. Apparently, this was not done and as a result some portion of the truck struck against the deceased killing him in the process. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle had contributed to the accident. The question now is that in what proportion should be the liability assessed. Apparently, the deceased was sitting on a place which was not meant for the passengers, but at the same time the cross- objector i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle, who had seen the jeep along with its occupants from a considerable distance had the greater duty to ensure that it did not impact against the vehicle or its occupant. In this manner the inter se liability for contribution towards the accident is determined as 70% of the driver of the offending vehicle and 30% of the deceased. The next question is as to what is the amount of compensation that should be awarded to the claimants who are the widow and minor son of the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs.250/- per month or Rs.3,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of 24 to arrive at a figure of Rs.72,000/- No amount was granted on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. After going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation according to the established norms. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was having F.A.O.No. 1309 of 1989 -4- some agricultural land to his credit. However, the Tribunal has rightly held that the benefit of the produce of the land would continue to enure to the dependents and therefore there was no loss of income on this account. But it is apparent that in the absence of the deceased the widow and the minor son would necessarily have to fall back on some arrangement in order to ensure that the land is cultivated and the produce is harvested and in the process they would have had to employ some labourer. Even otherwise even if the income of the deceased was to be assessed as that of a labourer, in the absence of any further evidence in the year 1988 it was expected that a labourer would be earning somewhere between Rs.900/- to 1,000/- per month. Accordingly, it is safe to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month. 1/3rd is the normal mode of deduction which is accepted in this case also. Therefore, the dependency works out to Rs.600/- per month or Rs.7,200/- per annum. In this manner applying a multiplier of 17, which is considered just and suitable in the given set of circumstances, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants is computed as Rs.1,22,400/- . An amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. 70% of the amount of Rs.1,47,400/- comes out to Rs.1,03,180/- to which the appellants are held entitled on account of the death of Desh Deepak. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation as per the findings given above. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has F.A.O.No. 1309 of 1989 -5- been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal is accepted and the cross-objections are dismissed. 24.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss