Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd. and Another vs Mehnga Singh and Others

G.C. Mital, J.—This order will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 37 and 39 of 1974, in which somewhat similar points are involved and which arise of two incidents which took place in quick succession.

On the night between 25th and 26th April, 1970, certain employees of Municipal Electricity Department, Amritsar, were doing official work at about 2.15 a.m. on Chamrang road near the crossing of that road with G.T. road. At that time, truck No. PNQ-1247 came from Amritsar side at a very high speed and it over-ran Ramesh Chand, employee of the Municipal Committee, who was killed at the spot. Mother and unmarried sister of Ramesh Chand filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in which the driver of the truck was held guilty of negligence and they were awarded Rs. 2,500/- as compensation, Rs. 1,800/- for the mother and Rs. 700/- for the unmarried sister. Feeling aggrieved from the award, both the claimants have filed F.A.O. No. 39 of 1974 in this Court for enhancement of the compensation.

After Ramesh Chand was runover, the driver of the truck did not stop his vehicle and wanted to escape. In that attempt, Gurmukh Singh, who was cleaner of the truck and was sitting on the goods lying in it, was hit by the branches of the overhanging trees as a result of which he fell down on the road. Passers by raised an alarm that the cleaner of the truck had fallen down. The driver of the truck first brought the vehicle to a halt and then reversed the same. While reversing the truck, Gurmukh Singh cleaner of the truck was runover by the truck and he also died on the spot. The parents and minor sisters and brothers of the deceased filed a claim application in which total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded, Rs. 5,000/- to the father, Rs. 5,000/- to the mother, Rs. 5,000/- to the four minor brothers jointly, in equal shares and Rs. 5,000/- to the three minor sisters jointly in equal shares. Against that award, the insurance company has filed F.A.O. No. 37 of 1974 for the setting aside of the same.

First dealing with F.A.O. No. 37 of 1974, the Learned Counsel for the insurance company could hardly raise any arguments to upset the finding of the Tribunal about the negligence of the truck driver. Moreover, on a reading of the evidence on the record, it is amply proved that the driver of the truck was grossly negligent due to which Gurmukh Singh cleaner of the truck died. Normally, the driver would have come out of the truck and would have gone on foot to see the cleaner of the truck, but in his anxiety that he may not be caught for running over Ramesh Chand, he used the back gear of the truck and reversed the truck more than necessary with the result the cleaner of the truck, who was lying on the road, was also runover.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Learned Counsel for the insurance company was perfectly right in urging that no compensation could be awarded in law even to the minor brothers and sisters of the deceased because compensation is payable either to the descendants or the parents of the deceased. While agreeing with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the insurance company I am of the view that the total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be awarded to the parents of the deceased in equal shares. The salary of the cleaner was Rs. 275/- per month who was a young man of 24 years and was still unmarried. Therefore, even if he was spending Rs. 100/- per month on his parents, the award of Rs. 20,000/- seems to be proper, which, although would have been increased in view of Bishan Devi and Ors. v. Sirbaksh Singh and Anr. 1979 A.C.J. 496 (S.C.) if there had been an appeal on behalf on the parents. Therefore, the total quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is upheld, but it is modified under Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC and it is held that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is payable to the parents only in equal shares.

As regards F.A.O. No. 39 of 1974, since there is no appeal by the insurance company or the owner of the truck, it has to be taken that the finding of the Tribunal that it was the driver of the truck who was negligent, has to be upheld. Even otherwise, from the evidence on the record, I find that the driver of the truck was grossly negligent in running over Ramesh Chand who was working on the road side as a municipal employee.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, it has come in evidence that the pay of Ramesh Chand was Rs. 141/- per month with effect from 1.1.1970. He was 18 years of age and was matriculate. The Tribunal considered Rs. 25/- per month to be the dependency and after applying the multiplier of ten years, it came to the conclusion that he would have spent Rs. 3,000/- on his mother. Since the amount was being paid in lumpsum, the Tribunal applied a cut and held that Rs. 2,500/- were payable which were apportioned between the mother and minor sister in the ratio of Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 700/- . The counsel for the claimants has urged that the dependency would have been at least Rs. 70/- per month for the mother alone, even if a sister is not entitled to claim compensation. Then he states that the dependency should have been at least for 20 years for a young man of 18 years because his mother was also not old enough and would have lived much more than 20 years. On this basis, it is claimed that the total compensation deserves to be raised to Rs. 16,800/- . In support of the argument, reliance is placed on Bishan Devi''s case 1979 A.C.J. 496 (S.C.). In this case, the Respondents have been served but inspite of service, appearance has not been put in. Accordingly, I proceed to decide this matter ex parte.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that total compensation of Rs. 16,800/- deserves to be awarded. Although in law, the sister would not have been entitled to claim compensation, but since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 700/- to the sister and no appeal has been filed by either the insurance company or the owner of the truck, therefore, the award of Rs. 700/- to the unmarried sister is maintained. In Bishan Devi''s case 1979 A.C.J. 496 (S.C.) the dependency was found to be Rs. 100/- and Rs. 20,000/- were awarded, therefore, on that basis, on the dependency of Rs. 70/- per month, the total compensation of Rs. 16,800/- is in no case excessive. Accordingly, the compensation payable to mother is enhanced from Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 16,100/- . It is further ordered that on the enhanced amount, Sandhaya Devi, mother of the deceased, would be entitled to 6% interest from the date of filing the claim application till payment thereof.

For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals stand disposed of as indicated above, with no order as to costs.