Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Smt. Raj Bala And Others on 26 March, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
Archana arora
FAO No. 3082 of 1999 1 2014.04.04 16:17
I am the author of this
document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3082 of 1999
Date of decision March 26 , 2014
State of Haryana and another
....... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Raj Bala and others
........ Respondents
FAO No. 3083 of 1999
State of Haryana and another
....... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shakuntla and others
........ Respondents
FAO No. 3084 of 1999
Haryana State and another
....... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Rajbala and others
........ Respondents
FAO No. 3085 of 1999
Haryana State and another
....... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sumitra Devi and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Gourav Verma, AAG., Haryana
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be FAO No. 3082 of 1999 2 allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. All the appeals are at the instance of the State making a contention that the collision involving the bus with the car happened on the left side of the road as the photograph produced before the tribunal would show. This according to the counsel, proves that the car had come to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the bus. I have seen the photograph and it bears screech mark for quite a distance which means that the driver was attempting to apply the brakes but could not immediately stop and the vehicle proceeded to quite a distance before stopping. All the four passengers in the car died. It ought to have been a gruesome accident. I cannot find that the driver of the bus was not to be seen as negligent at all.
2. Even taking a contention that the driver of the car had been guilty of contributory negligence and even a larger slice of blame was to be made on the driver of the car even then by the scales of compensation that are being assessed by the Supreme Court about prospect of increase of income even for private employment and also a higher quantum of compensation for loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to the children, the compensation assessed is only modest. Even for the children in each one of the cases would have secured a quantum more than twice as what was assessed by the Tribunal and if it should have FAO No. 3082 of 1999 3 been scaled down by 50% or more for negligence on the part of the driver of the car even then the liability cannot be less than what has been already assessed by the Tribunal.
3. In FAO No. 3082 there was death of a male aged 26 years and he was said to be a driver earning `2,000/- per month. The claimants were widow, minor son and a minor daughter. In FAO No. 3083 of 1999 the death was of a male aged 25 years and the claimants were widow and minor daughter. The deceased was said to be an electrician earning `2600/-. In FAO No. 3084 of 1999 the deceased was 27 years of age and the claimants were widow, two minor children and parents. He was said to be working in the same factory in which the deceased in the earlier case was working and drawing a salary of `2900/- per month. In FAO No. 3083 of 1999 the deceased was 20 years of age. The documents produced before the tribunal showed that he was a proprietor of M/s K. P. Steel factory and the certificate of properietorship had been given. Annexures P- 11 to P-16 showed that he had earned `45,770/- in three and half months before his death. He was also an income tax assessee. Although there were documents that showed the average income at `13,000/-, the Tribunal took the average income at `9,000/- provided for a 1/3rd deduction and took the contribution to the family at `6,000/-. If income were to be taken at `13,000/- as the document showed and 50% deduction were to be made, the contribution to the family would have been still more than what was taken by the Tribunal. The tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 and if a multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased must have been taken as laid FAO No. 3082 of 1999 4 down in Amrit Bhanu Shali Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 ACJ 2002 the multiplier must have been even 18.
4. If in all the cases the prospects of increase at 50% had been applied and loss of consortium and loss of love and affection were to be addressed with higher sums of `1 lac each, each one of the cases would have yielded to amounts twice as much as what has been assessed. Even if 60% of the amount were to have been deducted as going towards contributory negligence, that would apply only to the case of driver and not the case of passengers. It was perfectly tenable for the passengers to treat this accident as a case of composite negligence and claim the whole money from one of the tort feasors without suffering any abatement of their respective claims. I find the sums assessed are too modest even to accept the contention that there had been a case of contributory negligence. I would not find any reason to re-open the issue of quantum.
5. All the appeals are dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 26, 2014 archana