Dharam Vir Sharma and Others vs Chhoti Devi and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—This appeal arises out of the following facts:-

On 23rd July, 1992, Rani Singh since deceased the son of Tuhi Ram was going from his village Garoli Khurd to Gurgaon driving his Tempo Tata-407 No. HR-26/7196. One Devi Ram was also present in the vehicle as a conductor. At about 8.30 P.M. when the vehicle in question reached near the Radha Swami Sat Sang Bhawan in the area of Village Garoli Khurd on the Gurgaon Patauli Road, a truck bearing registration No. HNQ-3252 driven by Vinod Kumar respondent at a very high sped came from the opposite direction. As a result of the head on collision between the two vehicles, Ran Singh received serious injuries arid later expired. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased, thereafter, moved the tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of their son claiming that his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and that the compensation was to be assessed accordingly.

In the joint written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, it was denied that the vehicle No. HNG-3252 had been involved in the accident. Respondent No. 3 filed a separate written statement also controverting the material averments made in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the accident in question had occurred on 23.7.1992 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HNG-3252 by Vinod Kumar-respondent? OPP.

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation; if so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence and was not acting in the course of employment at the time of alleged accident; if so, to what effect? OPR.

(4) Relief.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle No. HNQ-3252. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and after making an allowance of 1/3rd that he might have been spending on himself, the liability was to be reduced by 1/3 rd and that as the mother and father of the deceased are 40 and 50 years in age respectively, a multiplier of 15 was in order and having held as above, worked out the compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/- to be payable by the appellants. The Tribunal further found that a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was also due on account of damages suffered by the vehicle i.e. Tempo Tata-407 No. HR-26/7196. Hence, this appeal by the respondents.

Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has urged that the finding with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck No. HNG-3252 was open to serious challenge and as a matter of fact the truck in question had not been involved in the accident.

I have considered this argument and find that it lacks merit. It is significant that after the accident, Vinod Kumar the driver had run away from the spot leaving the truck behind. I have, therefore, absolutely no doubt with regard to the involvement of the truck in question in the accident.

Mr. Chaudhri has then argued that he could not seriously challenge that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 2,000/- p.m., yet the monthly dependency determined as being 2/3rd of that amount could not be sustained as the loss that was suffered by the claimants could not be tabulated to that amount. He has also relied upon Ram Murti and Others Vs. Tarlochan Singh and Others, , Bulak Sao Vs. Ram Nath Prasad and Another and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Nand Rani, , in support of his case.

I have considered this argument of the learned counsel as well and find that it has no merit. The Tribunal in para 7 of the judgment relied upon various judgments rendered by the high Courts including our own and has given a positive finding that in the light of the age factor of the claimants, a multiplier of 15 was to be applied on the annual de pendency that was found due to the claimants. As a matter of fact, even the judgments cited by the learned Counsel support the broad principle accepted by the Tribunal in the present proceedings as well as the dependency as also the multiplier used in the cited cases was on the same principle as has been accepted herein.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same stand dismissed.