LAKHWINDER KAUR Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the award assessed on no fault liability when the deceased who was an under trial transported in a police bus came by a fatal injury by virtue of an alleged collision of the truck. The truck was neither chased down nor was it identified. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the police bus. When a claim was made against the State, the State ought to have owned up responsibility and provided compensation that was just. It was unfair and unjust that the State must have taken up any plea in defence to state that the truck which was not identified or chased down, it was unfortunate that the State would take a defence that the claimants would have a right of action only against the truck driver who was not caught and the truck owner who was not identified. As far as the deceased was concerned, a person, who was bound to be transported with safety when he was in the custody of the police, had died and that itself was sufficient cause of action by the claimants against the State. The exclusion of liability pleaded by the State and the assessment to compensation made on no fault basis against the State at Rs. 50,000/- was grossly unjust. It is not very clear what his avocation was and what criminal case he was being prosecuted with. The claimants for death of felons and sex workers have been the subjects of consideration in English jurisdiction where courts have expressed difficulty in assessing compensation on the income earned by such a person due to the activities which were recognized by law unlawful. In Burns v. Edman, 1970 2 QB 541, the claimants were dependents on a criminal who placed their extent of dependence on the proceeds of criminal offences. The case applied the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. A similar result was reached in Harinder v. Butler a report in the Times, dated 28.12.1995 that the dependents were claiming damages for loss of support that the deceased could have provided by means of a frauds committed against the Department of Social Security could not be taken into consideration for damages. This situation is not without Indian example. In Union of India v. Lalman Badri Parshad,1954 AIR(VP) 7(Vindh) Pra , the court held that it could take into account only the services legally rendered by the deceased. It was deciding a case under the fatal accidents Act when it held that the court would not grant damages for the income that the deceased was bringing home by "cutting purses and committing dacoities". The court made a distinction that there could be incomes got by practicing mild illegalities. It observed that the courts will have to find whether the same income could come into the family if the illegality was remedied. This theory is expounded in this case only for the relevance of appropriate evidence to be brought at the trial when a case for damages is brought at the instance of a person for his own criminal offence or the representatives of the deceased who were setting out a situation of death during the time when the person was in police custody.

(2.) I have already observed that there is no evidence regarding the avocation of the deceased. I take the average income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-, considering the fact that he had died on 29.05.1992, apply a deduction of 1/3rd, take the contribution to the family at Rs. 2,000/-. He was 42 years of age and applying a multiplier of 14, the loss of dependence would come to Rs. 3,36,000/-. I would add Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium to the wife and another Rs. 1 lakh for loss of love and affection for both the children and also making a provision for loss to estate at a modest sum of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation payable would come to Rs. 5,43,500/-. The amount shall be distributed equally amongst the claimants with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the State. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.