Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maharaj Krishan Ganjoo Son Of Shri ... vs Sukhbir Singh Son Of Shri Dhan And Others on 31 October, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.1783 of 1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1783 of 1993
Date of Decision.31.10.2012
Maharaj Krishan Ganjoo son of Shri Sukhdev Ganjoo and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Sukhbir Singh son of Shri Dhan and others .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate for
Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a woman aged 35 years and the claimants were the husband and two sons and a daughter. Before the Tribunal, evidence was that the deceased was a partner in two businesses namely export of fruits and agro pesticides. She was a partner in both the businesses and she had been assessed income tax. The income tax returns for four years prior to her death on 10.03.1991 had been filed that showed that her annual income was ` 91,900/-, ` 1,23,493/-, ` 1,85,149/- and ` 1,89,000/- for the years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 respectively. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal found that a witness, who spoke about the status of the deceased, was not able to FAO No.1783 of 1993 -2- recall the actual business that she was engaged in and therefore, the Tribunal observed that she could not have conducted any business. The Tribunal also found that in India normally the husbands work in the names of the wives and therefore, it should only be taken that she was a house wife and her own contribution to the family must be ` 500/- per month.
2. I find the manner of assessment undertaken by the Tribunal betrays an abominable gender bias. It is strange for a Court to reason that women in India are only fit to be house wives. We have a whole generation of women that are competing with men in all spheres of life. Women's participation in social and economic life cannot any longer be under-estimated. If there was documentary evidence to show the nature of business which she was engaged in, the Tribunal was in error to look in affirmation through oral evidence and if the evidence of witness was deficient, it was irrelevant. So long as the genuineness of the income tax returns themselves could not be impeached, the Tribunal ought to have taken what was shown as the income of the deceased brought through the income tax returns. We have come by judicial dispensation providing for a prospect of increase and post 1992, with the onset of liberalization the business houses dealing with export have seen considerable growth in their businesses and income. If we consider again the fact that the income has gradually increased with every year from the year 1985, I would estimate the average annual income of the deceased to be ` 2 lacs per annum. Even apart from earning of a woman, even the value of a householder could not have been just ` 500/- per month. The manner of assessment of value of householder as FAO No.1783 of 1993 -3- undertaken by Division Bench of Madras High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Minor Deepika (2009) 6 MLJ 1005 by lauding it as an illuminating judgment in the decision of Supreme Court ir Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 218 that the householder's service, even in a case where she does not herself earn must be taken as 50% of what the husband earns. In this case if we must look for a woman entrepreneur, who is engaged in business, had to be taken as making a contribution not merely in the economic front but also for running a family to rear three minor children. I would, therefore, take the income at not less than ` 2 lacs and deducting 1/4th for her own personal expenses. I would take her yearly contribution to the family at ` 1,50,000/-. Considering the fact that she was 35 years of age, the appropriate multiplier that will have to be applied will be 15 and the loss of dependency would be ` 22,50,000/-. The loss of consortium to the husband and loss of love and affection to three minor children, I would estimate @ Rs.5,000/- each and make a further provision for loss to estate at ` 10,000/- and funeral expenses at ` 2500/-. The total amount of compensation payable will be ` 22,82,500/-. The amount in addition to what has already been awarded by the Tribunal will attract interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
3. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 31, 2012 Pankaj*