Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.106 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:30.06.2014 Miss Ramandeep Kaur and others ... Appellants versus Fazar Mohammad and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ---- K.Kannan, J.
1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of Navdeep Singh, the father of claimants 1 and 2 and the son of claimants 3 and 4. The deceased was said to be engaged in business of running a hotel, named, Raj Mohan Hotel. The Tribunal had taken the income at `5,000/- per month and assessed a compensation of `6,80,200/-.
2. In attempting to establish the income, the claimants had examined a person by name Des Raj, who was said to be Munim engaged part-time in preparation of accounts for the hotel business. The net profit statement had been prepared and filed in court as Ex.PW3/1 that showed the net profit to be of `1,04,997/-. The Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.106 of 2000 (O&M) -2- Tribunal did not act on the same, for, the witness was unable to say whether income tax had been paid. The petitioners themselves did not file any income tax returns.
3. I have seen the Income Tax (amendment) Finance Act, 1997 and I find that the taxable limit was above `40,000/- and if the income had been over ` 1 lakh, as contended, he would have paid income @ 20% upto the income of `1,50,000/-. I cannot find fault with the Tribunal for not giving credence to the rough accounts showed before the Tribunal. The benefit, which I would, however, give to the petitioners, would be to take the income at `5,000/- per month, as taken by the Tribunal and provide for prospect of increase as well. I shall rework the compensation and tabulate the various heads of claims as under:- Accident 17.03.1997 Navdeep Singh Age 25 years Occupation running hotel `15,000/- per month Claimants 2 minor children and parents Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No.Amount (`) Amount (`) 1. Income 5,000 5,000 2. Add,% of increase 30%/50% 7,500 3. Deduction ¼, 5,625 4. Multiplicand 67,500 5. Multiplier 17 17 6. Loss of dependence 6,73,200 11,47,500 7. Medical expenses 8. Loss of consortium 7,000 9. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 10. Loss to estate 5,000 11. Funeral expenses 10,000 Total 6,80,200 12,62,500 Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.106 of 2000 (O&M) -3- There shall be an award of `12,62,500/-.
4. It is not very clear if the mother of the children had also expired in the same accident. She has not been made a party but the tribunal has provided for loss of consortium. If the mother of the minor children should have also expired, the parents of the deceased must have taken greater responsibility for taking care of the children and for the business which the son had left behind.
5. I notice that there has been even a proposal made for compromise initiated at the instance of the claimants, but the Insurance Company did not move to any negotiable table for settlement. Even the attempt before the Lok Adalat did not yield fruit. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company must have pushed the claimants for an adjudication on an adversarial basis.
6. The additional amount of compensation, as determined, will also attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The entitlement brought through this award shall be distributed in the ratio of 2:2:1:1 amongst the children and the parents of the deceased respectively.
7. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed with costs of `10,000/- against the Insurance Company. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE3006.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document