IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
FAO NUMBER 680 OF 2000
DECIDED ON : -12-2008
Ravinder Pal Singh & another
....Appellants
versus
Surinder Kumar and others
....Respondents
AND
FAO NUMBER 681 OF 2000
DECIDED ON : 09-12-2008
Ravinder Pal Singh & another
….Appellants
versus
Surinder Kumar and others
….Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K KANNAN
Present: Shri Parveen Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners
Shri R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the Insurance Co.
K KANNAN J
I The Accident
1.FAOs Nos.680 and 681 of 2000 are taken up together with the consent of
both the parties since they arise out of the same accident. FAO No. 680 of 2000 is
against the decision in MACT Case No. 91 of 1994 and FAO 681 of 2000 is against the
judgement in MACT Case No.92 of 1994. In the motor accident that took place on 16-
07-1994, Bhupinder Singh was driving Maruti Car No. PB-10K-7773 and his father
Harcharan Singh was travelling with him in the said car. Both of them died in the
accident in collision with the truck bearing No.PCR-8422. The petitioners before the
Tribunal were the wife and children of Harcharan Singh. The two claim petitions were
filed as dependents of both Harcharan Singh and Bhupinder Singh. The widow of
Harcharan Singh ( the mother of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) also died during the pendency
of the appeal on 21-09-1995 and the case was prosecuted only by the petitioners Nos. 2
and 3.
FAO 680 of 2000 –2–
II Evidence regarding status and income
2.Before the Tribunal, evidence was adduced to the effect that the father
and the brother were both doing business as contractors and they had a lucrative
income out of their respective work as contractors with the Government. Evidence had
also been tendered before the Tribunal that both the deceased persons had been
paying income tax. Income tax deducted at source and the TDS certificates issued by
the Government when it had availed the services of the deceased persons, had been
produced. There was also evidence that the father was earning per month
Rs.13,709.04p and Rs.14867.57p during the year 1991-1992 and 1992-1993
respectively. The income-tax practitioner had been examined as AW4 relating to
income of Harcharan Singh and Bhupinder Singh. Even apart from the income from
their business in doing contracts by the Government, evidence had been tendered to the
effect that the father was cultivating the land on lease and was paying lease amount of
Rs.3500/-per acre per year. The lease deed had been marked as Exhibit A8. The
appellants’ contention in oral evidence was that the father was earning at least
Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/-per month and the brother Bhupinder Singh was earning
between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-per month. The T.D.S.Certificates for the father had
been marked as Exhibits A2 to A11 while the T.D.S. Certificates for the brother had
been marked as Exhibits A17 to A20.
III Dispensation at the Tribunal:
3. The Trial Court found that the evidence produced by the appellants
regarding the income of the deceased stood unrebutted but all the same ,
that the contribution of the family could have been only Rs.3000/-per
month and reckoned the annual dependency of children to be
Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of “10” and awarded
compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-as the amount payable to the appellants
for the death of the father. While considering the compensation arising
out of the death of the brother, the Tribunal took note of the fact that his
own contribution towards the family would have fallen after his marriage if
he had been alive and that he would have contributed Rs.800/-per month
to the appellants. Their annual dependency was calculated at Rs.9600/-
and multiplier of “16” had been adopted to arrive at Rs.1,53,600/-as
compensation payable.
FAO 680 of 2000 –3–
IV Claims for enhancement, how justified:
4.The appellants seek for enhancement in both the cases. Counsel for the
appellants contends on the finding of the Tribunal that the income of the deceased
person stood unrebutted, it ought to have taken the income as stated in the petition and
the dependency calculated at Rs.3000/-per month was grossly low. In a similar way, the
counsel also contended that the contribution of the brother to the family as assessed at
Rs.800/-per month was also grossly low and the compensation arrived at was
erroneous. Counsel for the respondent supports the judgement of the Tribunal by
pointing out that the dependency at Rs.3000/-had been reckoned only on the basis that
the monthly income would have been only Rs.4500/-and the appellants not having put in
evidence the best material by producing the income tax returns the assessment orders
cannot merely rely on the T.D.S.Certificates for boosting their claims. He would also
submit that the assessment of compensation for the death of the brother was also
realistic that the appellants cannot duplicate their claim after making a claim for the
death of the father .If they had been depending on the father, they could not be said to
be dependent on the brother for their living. According to him, the award of
compensation of Rs.1,56,300/-for the death of the brother was more than adequate.
5.It is an unfortunate situation where the appellants who are young in
age who were minors at the time of presentation of the petition, had become orphans
by the death of their mother during the time of the trial. The appellants took trial at a
time when their father had died, their eldest brother had also met the same fate and
their mother had died a natural death. I see significant force in the contention of the
counsel for the appellants that when the Tribunal found that there was uncontroverted
evidence regarding the income of the deceased persons, the Tribunal could not have
taken only Rs.3000/-as contribution to the family arising out of the death of the father.
The Tribunal had also not taken note of the income from agricultural operations which
their father had been shown to have carried out by production of lease deed. It is no
doubt true that the income-tax returns have not been filed but filed the T.D.S.Certificates
and the tax deducted at source is a percentage of income and it is not difficult to assess
what could have been earned by the deceased father as brought out through evidence
of AW4 . There is no reason to doubt either the T.D.S.Certificates or the income charts
made by the income-tax practitioner and produced in court evidence as Exhibit A21 to
A22. The monthly income of the father had been shown as ranging between Rs.13,000
FAO 680 of 2000 –4–
to Rs.14,800/-. Having regard to the fact that the father would have under the normal
circumstances lived long enough to support the family and bring up the children he
could have earned at least Rs.15,000/-per month and the father would have contributed
at least Rs.5000/-towards the children . Given the social and cultural traits of Indian
families, the contribution of the elder brother cannot be doubted. I assess the
dependency of the appellants on their elder brother at Rs.1500/-per month. The choice
of multiplier by the Tribunal at “10” is on the lower side, even less than what is set out in
Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant multiplier given under the Schedule
is “13” for a person between 50-55, I take the appropriate multiplier to be “12” in view of
the fact that the income more than what is set out in the Schedule. The compensation
towards their extent of dependence of their father is estimated at
Rs.5000x12x12=7,20,000/-. As regards the claim of the appellants as dependent upon
their brother while increasing the amount to Rs.1500/-per month, I deem it necessary to
reduce the multiplier from “16” to 10, having regard to the fact that the brother would
have got married and his contribution to the family would have reduced. I cannot,
however, assume that the brother would not have contributed to the family and that his
father would have alone done the same. Assuming that the brother would have played
an important role in supporting the family offering emotional and physical support to his
younger siblings, the appropriate amount that would be payable on account of the death
of the brother comes to be Rs.1500x12x10=1,80,000/-. As regards the father’s death,
the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,60,000/-and the appellants would be entitled to
an additional sum of Rs.3,60,000/-being the dependents . As regards the claim in
respect of the death of their brother, the appellants would be entitled to difference
between Rs.1,80,000/-and Rs.1,53,600/- i.e. Rs.26,400/-rounded to Rs.27,000/-. Even
apart from the above, the petitioners would also be entitled to Rs.20,000/-towards loss
of love and affection of their father.
V Result:
6.Under the circumstances, the appellants would be entitled to an
additional compensation of Rs.3.80 lacs (Rs.three lakhs eighty thousand only) with
simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
payment as regards their claim in FAO 680 of 2000 and an additional sum of
Rs.27,000/-{Rs.twenty seven thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
due to the death of their brother which is the subject matter of appeal in FAO 681 of
2000.
FAO 680 of 2000 –5–
7.Both FAOs Nos. 680 and 681 of 2000 are allowed partially in the above
terms.
Sd/-
{K Kannan}
Judge
09-12-2008
Internet: Yes
Reportable: Yes