F.A.O.NOs. 571 & 710 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 571 OF 1993 Date of decision:7th February, 2011 Darshan Singh and another .......Appellants Versus Parminder Kaur and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 710 OF 1993 Parminder Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Darshan Singh and another .......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate, for Mr. Vinod Kataria, Advocate, for the claimants. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the owner and driver of the tractor. 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?No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The two appeals are connected. FAO NO. 571 of 1993 is at F.A.O.NOs. 571 & 710 OF 1993 2 the instance of the owner of the tractor and driver against the award passed by the Tribunal and FAO No. 710 of 1993 is filed at the instance of the claimants for enhancement. 2. The deceased was a constable in the Punjab Police. At the time of accident he was working as a driver in the Vigilance Flying Squad Department Section of the Police. He was 31 years of age and said to be earning Rs. 2,012/- per month. It was also tendered in evidence that on most of the occasions he would remain on out station duty and he would be paid an additional amount of Rs. 20 per day for that. The claimants were widow, three minor children and mother. The Tribunal took the contribution to the family at Rs. 1,200/- per month, adopted a multiplier of 20 and determined Rs. 2,88,000/- as payable but reduced the amount to Rs. 2,30,000/-. The award was issued against the owner and driver of the tractor. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner-driver in FAO No. 571 of 1993 would contend that even as per the evidence of a co-passenger in the jeep which was driven by the deceased, no part of the tractor was hit in collision but the jeep had hit only against the front portion of the trolley. This according to the learned counsel would show that there could not have been any negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. It was the further contention that the deceased and others were returning after attending a marriage party and the driver had himself consumed liquor and not stable. Unfortunately however, the post mortem did not examine the viscera F.A.O.NOs. 571 & 710 OF 1993 3 and there was no possibility of finding that he had consumed a liquor. It was the further contention that the senior official of the police travelling in a vehicle was himself not examined and the log book for the jeep had not been produced to show that the vehicle was returning after some official duty. 4. In response to the contentions, the claimants would contend that the tractor was being driven without head lights and therefore, the collision had taken place by the jeep being driven too close to the tractor and the front portion of the trolley had been hit. If there was evidence to such an effect, I would take that to be the chief contributing factor for the accident. It is common knowledge that the tractor has a slim front and if there had been no lights, it was perfectly possible for on coming vehicle from the opposite direction to dash against front portion of the trolley. The fact that there was no log book for the jeep produced or the senior officer examined in my view would be irrelevant. It is not a matter of concern whether the jeep was being driven while on official duty or not. Again if there had been no positive evidence of liquor by failure to examine the viscera, it can not advance the case of driver or the conductor of the tractor. I uphold the finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence and will only examine the issue as regards the quantum. 5. I will make the modification of the award by taking the average income to be Rs. 2,500/-, giving an allowance for additional amounts that were said to be received by the driver on duty and also F.A.O.NOs. 571 & 710 OF 1993 4 provide for prospect of increase of salary and adopt a multiplier of 16 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. I will also make a provision for additional claims for loss of consortium for wife , loss of love and affection for the three minor children at Rs. 12,500/-, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. In total the amount of compensation that would become payable is at Rs. 5,57,000. The tabulated form of these calculations is as under:- FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 31 years Occupation Constable in Punjab Police Claimants Widow, three minor children and mother Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount(Rs) Amount(Rs) 1 Income 2012 2500 2 Add, % Increase 30% / 50% 2500 + 50% = 3,750 3 Average monthly income x 12 45000 4 Deduction ½, 1/3, ¼, 1//5 1/3rd ¼ 5 Multiplicand 1200 x 12 = 14400 33750 6 Multiplier 20 16 7 Loss of dependence 2,88,000 5,40,000 8 Medical expenses --- ----- 9 Loss of consortium for wife and love and affection for child --- 12500 10 Loss to estate --- 2500 11 Funeral Expenses .... 2000 Total 2,30,000 (reduced to Rs.) 5,57,000 6. The amount in excess over what has already been F.A.O.NOs. 571 & 710 OF 1993 5 awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be distributed equally among all the claimants. FAO NO. 571 of 1993 is dismissed and FAO No. 710 is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 7th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik