Charanjit Kaur and others vs Union of India and another

Manmohan Singh Liberhan, J.—The only question raised in this appeal is, whether the compensation awarded to the widow Smt. Charanjit Kaur and the injured Balwant Singh is adequate?

Briefly the facts are:-

The deceased Rajbir Singh, aged 26 years, was employed as an Assistant Sub inspector of Police at the time of accident on 21.4.1981. Balwant Singh aged about six years, was a pillion rider. The mother of the deceased, stated that the deceased was drawing Rs. 600/- per month as his salary. She further stated that he used to send her Rs. 300/- per month prior to his death. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the said statement, came to the conclusion, that the income of the deceased was Rs. 600/- and he was spending Rs. 300/- on his wife and mother out of the said amount, which was (sic) between the'' mother as Rs. 100/- and the wife Rs. 200/- per month Taking into consideration the ate of the claimants, the Tribnal applied the multiplier of sixteen and awarded Rs. 38,000/- to Smt Charanjit Kaur widow and Rs. 12,000/- to Balbir Kaur mother by adopting multiplier of 10 and Rs. 3000/- to Balwant Singh for his medical expenses, pain and suffering etc.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has failed to take judicial notice of the income of an Assistant Sub Inspector. The deceased was admittedly employed in the Punjab Police with a basic pay of Rs. 600/- per month. Thus, by adding all other perks, like (sic) etc. it can reasonably be inferred that his income was more than Rs. 1,400/- per month Statement of the poor illiterate ladies who stated that his salary was Rs. 600/- per month, is patently contrary to undisputed facts. The facts with respect to the basic pay of an Assistant Sub Inspector at the time of the accident and the total salary earned by the deceased by adding other allowances has not been seriously refuted by the counsel for the respondents. Giving the benefit of his personal expenses etc., in my opinion, the annual dependency of the mother and the wife would not be less than Rs. 10,000/- per annum.

It is not disputed at the bar that the deceased was married only two months prior to the date of accident and the age of the claimants Smt. Charanjit Kaur was hardly 22 years. Giving the benefit of normal expectancy of life span of seventy years and taking into consideration the chances of promotion and the age of the deceased and precedents relied upon in Bansi Lal and another v. Sohan Singh (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 512, in which D.V. Sehgal, J., has adopted the multiplier of twenty, Smt. Rukmani Devi v. Rameshwar Datt (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 118, Jyotana Dev and others v. State of Assam and others (1987-1) 91 P.L.R. 646 and Lachhman Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 31 P.L.R. 1. I am of the opinion that in facts and circumstances multiplier of 20 is the reasonable multiplier.

Applying the multiplier of twenty, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,40 000/-, out of which the widow is entitled to 2/3rd and the mother to 1/3rd. I assess the amount of compensation payable to Smt. Charanjit Kaur claimant at Rs. 1,60,000/- and to Smt. Balbir Kaur at Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

Learned counsel next contends that Balwant Singh claimant had to undergo two operations and remained hospitalised for his leg fracture and other injuries for about 25 days and remained under plaster for about six months. The compensation of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is totally disproportionate to the injuries suffered by the minor child. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am of the considered view that Balwant Singh claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in total, for his medical expenses as well as for his pain and suffering. Therefore, I award Rs. 10,000/- with 12 per cent interest from the date of application till the payment to Balwant Singh claimant.

In view of my above observations, this appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified, in above terms no order as to costs.