FAO No. 1694 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Cross Objection NO.52-CII of 2001 and FAO No. 1694 of 1992 Date of decision February 3 , 2011 Haryana State Electricity Board and others ....... Appellants Versus Smt. Mewa Devi and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Neeraj Khanna , Advocate for Mr. L. M. Suri, Senior Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Samir Sachdeva , Advocate for the respondents-claimants-cross objectors **** 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 appeal is by the Electricity Bard on the ground that the involvement of the vehicle belonging to the Electricity Board as found by the Tribunal was erroneous. The driver gave evidence to the effect that the accident took place when the deceased was travelling in a scooter and was attempting to over take another truck and seeing that there was a bus coming from the opposite direction he had applied a brake and fell down and died. According to him, his vehicle had not been involved at all. The Tribunal rejected this evidence as false and considered the evidence of PW-2 an eye witness to the accident as clearly establishing the involvement of the vehicle. The tribunal also took note of the fact that FAO No. 1694 of 1992 2 the criminal case had been registered against the driver for negligence and the case was still in progress. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the administration for not filing necessary documents to show on what basis the driver had been taken to the police station in connection with the accident and the basis on which he was implicated. I do not find any error in the appreciation of evidence as undertaken by the Tribunal and would hold the involvement of the appellant's vehicle as established and also affirm the decision that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's truck. 2. There is a cross objection for enhancement. I will reassess the compensation providing for a prospect of increase in salary and also make an appropriate provision for a higher contribution to the family in view of the fact that the deceased was supporting his wife and four minor children and a mother. The reassessment is worked out in the tabulation below: S.No. Heads of claim Amount 1 Loss of dependency 4,96,800/- 2 Loss of consortium and love & affection 15,000/- 3 Loss to estate 5,000/- 4 Funeral expenses 2,000/- Total 5,18,800/- The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Additional amount shall be distributed equally amongst the wife and children. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. The cross objection is allowed as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 3, 2011 archana