- (1.) Out of three unfortunate deaths that take place in one accident, three claim petitions had been filed before the Tribunal. FAO No.4111 of 2011, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, was filed by the widow and children of deceased Jatinder Singh, whereas his mother aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and the apportionment made by the Tribunal preferred FAO No.5970 of 2011. FAO No.4721 of 2011 was filed by the widow and children of deceased Sukhwant Singh, whereas the daughter-inlaw and grand-children of deceased Sukhwant Singh have preferred separately FAO No.4112 of 2011. Further FAO No.4113 of 2011 was filed by the dependents of deceased Avtar Singh. All these appeals have been basically preferred aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the respondent-insurance company had not filed any appeal, nor had it filed any cross-objection. FAO No.4111 and 5970 of 2011
(2.) Late Jatinder Singh who died in the said accident had left behind his wife, two minor children and his mother. It is to be noted that there are 4 claimants arising out of the death of Jatinder Singh. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident. The claimants have proved that the deceased had agricultural land measuring 8 acres. Though the claimants have contended that deceased Jatinder Singh had mobile shop, there was not even a scrap of paper to show that Jatinder Singh at the time of accident was running mobile shop. The Tribunal arrived at a sum of 3900/- as monthly income of the deceased. No amount was awarded towards future prospects. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 rd towards the personal living expenditure of deceased Jatinder Singh from his earning. The Tribunal granted only 10% of the amount awarded to the share of mother of Jatinder Singh. In other words, 90% of the award amount was apportioned to the benefit of the widow and two minor children.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in FAO No.4111 of 2011 would submit that even an agricultural labourer would earn not less than Rs4000/- per month. But unfortunately, the Tribunal had arrived at the monthly earning capacity of deceased Jatinder Singh who owned 8 acres of land as Rs3900/-. He would submit that the Tribunal had totally ignored the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121 and in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2012 2 RCR(Civ) 882, wherein 30% increase in the monthly earning towards future prospects has been ordered to be awarded even in a case where there was death of a casual labourer or a person employed privately. He would submit that in view of the dictum in the aforesaid Sarla Verma's case , 1/4 th income of the deceased should have been deducted from his total income, considering the four dependents who had come up with the claim petition before the Tribunal.;