BHARTI MEHTA Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to decide five connected cases F. A. O. Nos. 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738 and 1739 of 1994 by this common order. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest that these matters may be decided in the manner as thought over by the Court as all these matters arise from the same accident.

(2.) AT the very outset, Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants states at the bar that he does not press F. A. O. Nos. 1735 and 1738 of 1994. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

(3.) COMING to F. A. O. No. 1738 of 1994, it is proved on the record that Wazir Chand Mehta who died in the accident was an Advocate practising at Hissar. Evidence has been led to show that he was a leading Advocate in the town. Besides having income of Rs. 6000.007000 p. m. , he was owning 41 acres of agricultural land which he was managing himself. In the claim petition that has been filed by two daughters who were concededly unmarried at that time, the Tribunal assessed the dependency of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 4000.00 p. m. and by applying a multiplier of 10 worked out total compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 4,83,000/ -.