FAO No.805 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.805 of 1994 Date of Decision. 05.10.2010 Smt. Ramesh Devi widow of Data Ram and others ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana through Secretary Transport Haryana, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Rajni, Advocate for respondent No.3. 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 ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The claimant is on appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in a case where the Tribunal found that the family of the deceased was entitled to Rs.2,08,000/-. The deceased was a Government employee working as a Patwari in Canal Department drawing a salary of Rs.3250/- and after deduction of GPF contribution, HRA, medical allowance etc, he had taken carry home salary of Rs.3,000/-. The accident has said to have taken place at the time when he was getting into the bus through the front door and driver was alleged to have started the vehicle without waiting FAO No.805 of 1994 -2- for a signal of the Conductor to start the vehicle. The driver contested that his vehicle was involved in the accident but the Tribunal, as a matter of fact, found that the accident took place at the time when the deceased was attempting to get through the front door since the back door had been closed. The vehicle was not stationary and even when it was moving, the deceased attempted to get into the vehicle from the front door and therefore, there was no occasion for the Conductor to signal the vehicle to start. The Tribunal still found that the maximum share of responsibility for the accident was on the driver of the vehicle and apportioned the liability as 80:20 against the driver of the vehicle and deceased. For contributory negligence, there was a partial abatement of claim to the extent of 20% in the manner in which the Tribunal determined the compensation by providing for a multiplier of 14 and taking the dependence of family at 2/3rd of his income. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that there was no negligence at all on the part of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have found contributory negligence. It was his further contention that the compensation has not been properly assessed and it took a deduction of 1/3rd when there were more than five persons as dependents on the deceased. The deceased had left a large family of his widow and five minor children and his aged parents. Consequently, the deduction must have been less than 1/3rd. 3. I would adopt the scale of compensation as provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 FAO No.805 of 1994 -3- and also make provision for increase in salary having regard to the fact that he was in government service and there was a definite prospect of increase in salary. The gross salary has to be taken minus tax and since he was earning Rs.3250/-, there could not be any deduction for tax. Since he was aged 41, I would provide for the 30% increase and that would give a figure of Rs.4225/-. Taking 1/5th deduction for his own personal expenses, the extent of dependence to the family per month would be taken as Rs.3380/-. If a 14 multiplier were to be applied, the compensation payable will be Rs.5,67,840/-. I would add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium for the wife and would provide Rs.2500/- for each of the children for love and affection of the father. I would add another Rs.2500/- towards loss to estate and another Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. I would maintain the finding regarding contributory negligence in the manner that has been done and make an abatement to an extent of 20% and that would yield Rs.4,71,872/- as the compensation payable to the family of the deceased. The amount is rounded off to Rs.4,72,000/- The amount in excess of what has already been granted shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The increase of the amount of what is now granted would be granted only to the widow and the children in equal shares. The distribution of amount as determined by the Tribunal is maintained. Having regard to the fact that the accident had taken place more than 15 years from now, I would make no direction for retention of any portion of the award with the Tribunal. FAO No.805 of 1994 -4- 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 05, 2010 Pankaj*