IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
F.A.O. No. 1203 of 1987
Date of Decision: 27.11.2008
Yash Pal Kashyap and others.
....... Appellants through Shri
Deepak Suri, Advocate.
Versus
M/S Gokal Chand Hari Chand and others.
....... Respondent no.3 through
Shri D.P.Gupta and Shri
Kunal Garg, Advocates.
None for other respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This appeal is directed against award dated 31.8.1987 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, `the Tribunal’)
in M.V.A.Case No. 57 of 13.12.1986/ 26 of 28.8.1987.
Sanjay Kashyap, aged 24 years, succumbed to his injuries on
27.9.1986, which he had sustained in a motor vehicular accident occurred
on 7.9.1986.
The parents of the deceased preferred a claim petition for grant
of compensation in which the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.900/- per
month by equating him with a labrourer, although it was pleaded by them
that he was doing business. The dependency of the claimants for the first
F.A.O.No.1203 of 1987
-2-
….
four years was fixed at Rs.600/- per month and for the next twelve years, at
Rs.200/- per month. In this manner, the total compensation of Rs.57600/-
was awarded to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of petition.
Dis-satisfied with the award, the appellants are in appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1 died, as a
result of which his legal heirs wee brought on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is
evidence on record to show that the deceased was a partner in a firm – M/S
Arun Kumar & Bros. along with his brother and that the gross profit of that
firm for the year ending 31.3.1986 was Rs.44820/- which is reflected in
Exhibit P13. He further contended that according to this document, the net
profit of the deceased was Rs.9511.63. Besides, there was some income of
the deceased from the trading in shares which has also been established by
way of evidence on record which is more than Rs.12000/- per annum.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the cumulative income of
the deceased was more than Rs.21000/- per annum and this has been totally
ignored by the Tribunal while assessing his income. He further submitted
that some amount on account of expenses incurred on the medical treatment
of the deceased also deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.3
contended that the impugned award is just and adequate. He submitted that
there was no cogent proof of the income of Rs.12000/- from the trading of
shares and in any eventuality, the net profit of Rs.9511.63 of the deceased is
F.A.O.No.1203 of 1987
-3-
….
almost equivalent to his income which has been assessed by the Tribunal.
He further submitted that the multiplier has been applied keeping in view
the age of the deceased, whereas it should have been applied by keeping in
view the age of the parents, who are the claimants.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record, I am of the considered pinion that the impugned award deserves
to be modified.
Concededly, the deceased was a commerce graduate and a
partner in the firm. Therefore, it would be wrong to equate him with a
labourer. The Tribunal has assessed assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.900/- per month by treating him as a labourer.
It is a settled principle of law that often the Court has to travel
in the realm of conjectures and resort to some guess work to arrive at a
figure of just compensation.
In the instant case, since the deceased was working in a
partnership with his brother and was also dealing in some other business
activities, it would be safe to assess his income at anything between
Rs.1800/- to Rs.2000/- per month. In my opinion, the figure of Rs.2000/-
would suffice. Therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed at
Rs.2000/- per month, i.e., Rs.24,000/- per annum.
The deceased was unmarried and,therefore, a cut of 1/3rd
towards his personal expenses should be applied. By doing so, the monthly
dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.1335/-, i.e., Rs.16,020/- per
annum.
F.A.O.No.1203 of 1987
-4-
….
In my view, the multiplier of `10′ would be just and
appropriate.
In this way, the compensation works out to Rs.1,60,200/-.
It has come on record that the deceased had remained
hospitalized for some days. Therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is allowed on
account of expenses for treatment and funeral etc.
Accordingly, the appellants are held entitled to receive a total
compensation of Rs.1,80,200/-.
The enhanced compensation shall be payable along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of realisation.
The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest
shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal.
The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the
appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
November 27,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge