Kailash Kaur vs Balbir and Others

M.M. Punchhi, J.—Parvinder Singh, aged about 16 years, a student, died on June 23, 1979, as a result of a motor accident caused by a bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways. The deceased at that time was riding a bicycle, the bus came from behind and after hitting him kept him dragged upto a distance of about 40 or 50 feet. The mother of the deceased, by the name of Kailash Kaur, filed an application for compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- on account of the loss of her son.

The driver of the bus, Balbir Singh, however, had a different version, as, according to him, the cyclist himself was at fault.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues:

Was the death of Parvinder Singh deceased at 7-15 a.m. on 23-6-1979 due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HYA-1456 by Respondent No. 1 on the road opposite Dewan Krishan Kishore College, Ambala Cantt, as alleged ? OPD.

In case issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled and from whom ? OPC.

Was the impact due to rashness and negligence of the deceased and co-cyclist, as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPR.

On issues Nos. 1 and 3, its finding was the Parvinder Singh lost his life on account of the rash and negligent driving of Balbir Singh respondent, and further that the deceased and his co-cyclist were not at fault. Thus, the decisions on issues Nos. 1 and 3 went in favour of the claimant. And in this appeal such findings are not challenged.

Finding on issue No. 2 went against the claimant, because the Tribunal took the view that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased as he was not earning anything at the time of the accident. On that ground, the appellant did not get a penny, which has given rise to this appeal by way of reagitation.

The view of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. The appellant had obviously reasonable expectancies from her son. He may not have been an earning member on the date of his death, but even at the age of 16, he was capable of earning. He was a student of 8th class and being the son of a Chowkidar was expected to continue his studies. Even if the factor of education is ruled out, as an able-bodied boy he was capable of earning at least Rs. 300/- per mensem as an unskilled labourer. By normal expectancies, till he would have got married, he would have contributed some of his earnings to his mother. It could even be expected that he would keep contributing something to his mother even after his marriage. Thus, having regard to all these possibilities and probabilities, the mother is entitled to some compensation on the basis of her future expectancies.

The claim of the mother is set at Rs. 30,000/-. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that to halve it would meet the ends of justice. I think, this is a fair solution. Accordingly she is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of the loss of her future expectances.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and an award is passed in favour of the appellant in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- against Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally. It shall carry with it an interest of 12 per cent per annum from today onwards till payment. No costs.