IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.172 of 2007 Reserved on: 28.5.2010 Decided on: June 22, 2010 Smt. Gauri Devi and others ..Appellants Vs B.D. Sharma and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Harish Dod, vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge 2. This appeal by Gauri Devi and others is directed against award dated 7.4.2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby they have been awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,000/-, with interest @7.5% per annum, for the death of Sant Ram, husband of appellant Gauri Devi and father of other two appellants, in a motor accident. Deceased Sant Ram was aged 62 years. He had retired from Army and was getting monthly pension of Rs.2514/- . He was travelling by a bus owned by respondent B.D. Sharma and driven by respondent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Hem Raj, on 21.1.2005. Bus was carrying a marriage party, which met with an accident in which said Sant Ram died. Petitioner filed claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was stated that the deceased besides getting pension, on account of his being an Ex-serviceman, used to earn by working on his farm and by plying a tractor and his income from agriculture was to the tune Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month and from operation of tractor Rs.7000/- per month. 3. Learned Tribunal held that deceased, being an old man of 62 years, was not in a position to do any manual work and to earn income from his agricultural land or by operating a tractor. It assumed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2514/- per month, which he used to draw as pension and making a cut to the extent of 1/3rd, the remainder amount was held to be loss of dependency. Applying the multiplier of 5 years purchase, a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- was awarded, on account of loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and also the loss of consortium. 4. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. According to them, the deceased was hale and hearty and used to wok on his land and grew crops like onion, garlic, vegetables etc. and earned Rs.5000/-, a month. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …3… 6. Admittedly, the deceased had retired from Army. It is a matter of common knowledge that those, who serve the Army or any other disciplined force, normally live longer compared to other people, because of the physical exercises, which they are required to undergo daily and also because of their very strict and regulated regimen. Not only this, they remain physically fit at least upto the age of 70. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the deceased could not have been doing any manual work to earn income from agriculture on account of his age cannot be upheld. 7. According to the averments in the petition, deceased used to earn Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/-, a month by working on his land. His total holding was around 5 Bighas or say one acre. It is quite likely that he would have been earning Rs.3000/-, a month, by growing vegetables and other cash crops on his land, as claimed by the appellants. So, it is held that in addition to income from pension, deceased had been earning Rs.3000/-, a month, by cultivating his land and growing vegetables thereon. 8. There is no evidence that deceased used to cultivate the land of others by means of his tractor and make earnings therefrom. 9. In view of the above stated position, it is held that the appellants, in addition to the loss of dependency already assessed and for which compensation has also already been awarded by the Tribunal, have sustained loss of dependency to the extent of Rs.2000/- per month (Rs.3000/- income from …4… agriculture reduced by 1/3rd, on account of deceased’s own expenses) and, therefore, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.2000x12x5 = Rs.1,20,000/-. 10. Consequently, appeal is allowed and additional compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the original petition to the date of payment of additional compensation, is awarded in favour of the appellants and against respondent B.D. Sharma and not against the Insurance Company, in view of the decision in FAO No.220 of 2007, filed by New India Assurance Company, titled New India Assurance Company Vs. Gauri Devi and others, decided by a separate judgment, in which it has been held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, as directed in the said judgment, Insurance Company shall first pay the aforesaid amount of additional compensation, with interest, and it may thereafter recover the same from respondent B.D. Sharma, the owner. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. June 22, 2010(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.