FAO No.388 of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.388 of 2000
Date of decision 23.12.2008
Sadhna and others .....Appellants
versus
Rajesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan.
Present: Mr. Samir Rathore, Advocate for
Mr. Sumit Goel, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate,
for Insurance Company.
K. Kannan, J.
1. The appeal is by the widow and son of deceased person
seeking for enhancement of claim for compensation for death arising out of
a motor accident. The aspect of rashness and negligent driving has been
considered by the Tribunal against the driver of the offending vehicle and it
has also considered favourably the issue of liability of the Insurance
Company as being bound to cover the claim for compensation. On the
question of quantum, the Tribunal considered that the deceased was renting
out tents and was also running tempo. He was an Income Tax assessee and
he was shown his total income in the year 1991-92 as Rs.23,050/- and there
had been evidence showing tax deducted at source in Form 16-A by Escort
Ltd., Faridabad in the service availed by the Company of tempo run by the
deceased person. The Tribunal held that the deceased was “earning
handsome income” from the business and keeping in view the documents,
assessed loss of supervision to the extent of Rs.2000/- per month. On such
basis, applying a multiplier of 16 and providing for loss of consortium the
FAO No.388 of 2000 -2-
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral
expenses and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,04,000/-.
2. Before me, it is contended that having found that the deceased
was earning a handsome and that he was an Income Tax Assessee, the
extent of dependence as determined by the Tribunal at Rs.2000/- was
grossly low. The counsel for the appellant contends that the income must be
taken at Rs.10,000/- per month and compensation awarded accordingly.
The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the award is just and
the assessment made by the Tribunal was on the basis of records available
and hence there was no scope of conjecturing the contribution of the family
would have been more than Rs.2000/- per month. The only aspect worth
while noting is that even the document for payment of tax which had been
filed related only to the year 1991-92. The accident had taken place in the
year 1996 but the petitioner had not filed any document for the relevant
period of nearly 5 years after the period for which the document had been
tendered. It must be remembered that the petitioner was a young widow and
she had placed before Court only such evidence as was probably retained by
her husband at the house. It will not be too artificial to imagine that over
the period of years the income would have increased. It is in evidence that
after the death of her husband the first petitioner could not pay the dues
payable to the financier for the purchase of the tempo and hence it had been
taken back by the financier. An important source of income had thus been
permanently lost. The loss of managerial expenses which the Tribunal
estimated at Rs.2000/- per month, I find such mode of assessment would be
appropriate only when the particular source of income remained. If the
tempo itself had been lost, the Tribunal ought to have awarded not merely
FAO No.388 of 2000 -3-
what it would cost the petitioners to hire the services of another person to
run the tempo but must have taken note of the resultant loss of income and
contribution to the family by death to the petitioners.
3. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was an Income Tax
Assessee, I assess his monthly income to be not less than Rs.4000/- per
month and after providing for 1/3rd towards personal consumption. I assess
the extent of dependency for the wife and the son to be Rs.32,000/- per year.
Adopting a multiplier of 16 the compensation payable would have been
Rs.5,12,000/-. The Tribunal has quantified Rs.3,84,000/- as the extent of
dependency and by that account there shall be an addition of Rs.1,28,000/-,
besides Rs.10,000/- awarded for consortium and Rs.10,000/- awarded for
last rites. Accordingly, the petitioners would be entitled to additional
amount of Rs.1,28,000/- from the date of the petition till the date of
payment with interest at 7.5 % per annum.
The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
( K. KANNAN )
23.12.2008 JUDGE
A. KAUNDAL