Civil Writ Petition No.11949 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11949 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.03.2011 Phoolkali and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Present one is a second approach by the petitioners to seek some compensation or enhanced compensation for death of their bread earner. Husband of petitioner No. 1, statedly died due to some negligence on the part of the respondent-Forest department as he met with an accident with the broken decayed Kikar tree lying on the road. DDR in this regard was registered by the petitioners. Post mortem was conducted and would show the injuries and cause of death. The petitioners served a legal notice seeking compensation pleading negligence and ultimately approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5426 of 2009, which was disposed of on 02.04.2009, with directions to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner on merits notwithstanding the fact the suit for damages could be filed as there may be dispute on facts. The respondents have shown some consideration and have awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the Civil Writ Petition No.11949 of 2010 2 petitioners. The petitioners would plead that this compensation is inadequate and are again before the Court praying for enhancing the compensation. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have suffered a loss by losing bread earner. As per the counsel for the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Mason and was earning sum of Rs. 300/- per day even as per conservative estimates. The monthly income of the deceased, thus, could be roughly assessed at Rs. 5000/- per month. Adopting the usual formula of dependency, the loss of income can fairly be assessed at Rs. 3400/- per month. Having regard to the age of the petitioner, multiplier of 13 would be available for being applied as is available under Motor Vehicles Accident Act. This method to assess compensation can fairly be adopted and has been so followed in such like cases to assess the compensation. Working out the compensation in this manner, the amount payable roughly is estimated at Rs. 5 lakhs. The State counsel, however, has very vehemently not only disputed the right of the petitioners to claim compensation in this regard but would submit that there is no material to show or prove any negligence for which the State could be asked to pay compensation. As per the State, there is no viable material placed on record to show that it was an accident on account of the negligence on the part of the respondent-State. Counsel even would submit that no sufficient material is available on record even to show that death was on account of the accident as alleged. In this regard, reliance is placed on the inquiry held by the police pursuant to the DDR recorded by petitioner No. 1 where it could not be established Civil Writ Petition No.11949 of 2010 3 that the deceased died due to an accident with decayed Kikkar tree which may have fallen on the road. The submissions made by the State counsel are not without substance. There may be a lack of sufficient material on record to conclusively establish the entire facts as pleaded but still there is material on record which would give some assurance about the accidental death of the deceased. At first available opportunity, petitioner No. 1 had recorded the DDR giving details of the manner of accident. Nothing much can be read into the finding that Kikkar tree was not recovered. It can well be that after the accident Kikkar tree could have been removed from the road as it could not have been left lying even otherwise to allow free flow of traffic. That would be a normal thing to do even by a passer-bye who may have gathered at the scene at the time of accident. No recovery of the decayed Kikkar tree and reliance on the police report on such ground would not be of much significance. It cannot be expected that petitioner No.1 was smart enough to think of lodging a report in distorted manner with an aim to seek compensation. Her version given without any scope of tutoring can be considered worthy of belief. It is because of some such consideration that this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition had given directions to the respondent-State to resolve this issue on the basis of pleadings and judgments cited by the petitioner without asking the petitioner to invoke the alternative remedy of filing the civil suit. That being the position, it would not be appropriate to now relegate the petitioners to file the civil suit which could otherwise be directed giving opportunity to the parties to establish all these facts Civil Writ Petition No.11949 of 2010 4 and ultimately to ask for compensation as prayed for. It may be noticed that the respondents had voluntarily taken a decision to award compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, which has already been disbursed to the petitioners. Now to urge that nothing would be due to the petitioners on the ground that accident has not been established certainly cannot be accepted. The respondents cannot say that they had simply decided to award this compensation without any basis. The State Government otherwise have even formulated the policy where compensation of ` 1 lakh is awarded under a scheme named as Rajiv Gandhi Bima Yojna. It is not that this ` 1 lakh has been disbursed under the same scheme. Sum of ` 1 lakh would appear erring on the lesser side considering the nature of loss suffered by the petitioners. The petitioners have lost a bread earner and are left to fend for themselves. Though no amount of compensation may be sufficient to re-compensate the loss that the petitioners have suffered but it will certainly be some solace to tide over difficult time. Taking all the facts into consideration and to balance the equities, I would consider that the compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs in lump-sum by adopting Guess Work Rule would meet the ends of justice. Let the remaining sum of ` 2 lakhs be disbursed to the petitioners as ` 1 lakh has already been paid to them. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. March 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE