Karanvir Parkash and Others vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Another

R.S. Mongia, J.—This is an appeal by the claimants staking their claim for further enhancement of compensation than that awarded by the learned single Judge of this court in F.A.O. No. 210 of 1977 filed by them.

Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27th May, 1974, at about 7.15 p.m. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation bus PNT 9083, while on its way from Patiala to Ambala suddenly went on to the wrong side of the road near Bahadurgarh Fort on Patiala-Rajpura Road and dashed against a tree resulting in the injuries to a number of persons travelling in the bus. Dr. (Mrs.) Krishna Parkash, who was one of the passengers in the bus, died as a result of injuries sustained by her in the accident. The husband of the deceased, Dr. Chander Parkash, who was aged about 50 years at that time and two sons of the deceased who were then aged 15 and 14 years respectively, filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, under the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of loss suffered due to the death of Dr. (Mrs.) Krishna Parkash.

According to the evidence on the record, deceased, Dr. (Mrs.) Krishna Parkash, was about 47 years of age at the time of her death. She was a lecturer at the Medical College, Rohtak. Her total emoluments at the time of her death were Rs. 1,435/- per month. The Tribunal found that the accident had occulted because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. A sum of Rs. 70,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. Both Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called ''the Corporation'') as well as the claimants filed separate F.A.Os. against the award of the Tribunal. The F.A.O. filed on behalf of the Corporation was that the compensation awarded was on the higher side, whereas claimants wanted the compensation to be suitably enhanced.

The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects, while dismissing the appeal of the Corporation, accepted the appeal of the claimants and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 1,68,000/- and the claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of the application. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned single Judge, the claimants have filed the appeal for further enhancement of the compensation.

The primary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arun Nehra, was that the claimant Dr. Chander Parkash who was a Professor of Medicine in the Medical College at Rohtak, was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. The entire expenses on running the household were being met by Dr. Chander Parkash himself and the entire earnings of the deceased were being saved by her. According to the learned counsel, there was loss to the claimants of the estate of the deceased and if she had not died, the entire savings of her which she would have saved upto the age of her retirement would have come to them. The learned counsel stressed that the learned single Judge had gone wrong in taking a figure of Rs. 1,000/-per month to be the loss of the estate to the claimants. The learned counsel further argued that the learned single Judge had wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 and in fact a multiplier of 20 should have been applied. The learned counsel further contended that no compensation had been awarded for the loss of gratuitous services to the claimants which were to be rendered to them by the deceased as a wife and mother respectively. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on Jyotsna Dey and Others Vs. State of Assam and Others, ); Unnati and Others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Another, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and Others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Others, ; The State of Punjab and Another Vs. Shakuntla Devi and Others, and Seema Chawla and Others Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others,

It may be noticed here that before the Tribunal no evidence was led that the entire earnings of the deceased were being saved by her. However, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC was made before the learned single Judge, for bringing on record an order passed by the Controller of Estate Duty, dated 2nd January, 1975 to show that the deceased was saving almost the entire earnings every month, on which estate duty had been paid by the claimants. The learned single Judge did not allow this additional evidence to be brought on the record, as according to him this order was already in existence when the evidence of the claimants was led before the Tribunal. However, the learned Judge did take into consideration the above aspect as well while enhancing the compensation and observed as under:

In the circumstances, therefore, it would not be a proper exercise of power to admit this additional evidence at this stage. Be that as it may, there can, however, be no manner of doubt that in assessing compensation payable to the claimants, regard must indeed to be had to the income and earnings of both Dr. Krishna Parkash and her husband Dr. Chander Parkash. The combined income obviously provided ample scope not only for meeting the expenses of the family and the household, but also for some savings, too. The loss that the claimants suffered must thus also include the loss that they suffered on account of the savings of the deceased.

There can thus be no manner of doubt that the claimants were also entitled to damages for loss of savings as loss to the estate.

After noticing the dictum of the Full Bench of this court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H), as to what are the various factors for determination of compensation as also the multiplier that is to be applied, the learned single Judge observed as under:

Seen in the totality of the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the relevant principles governing the determination of compensation, it would be fair and reasonable to assume that the expenses of the family and household were met largely out of the salary earned by Dr. Chander Parkash and therefore, by and large the emoluments of the deceased went towards the savings of the family. Some deduction would indeed have to be made on account of some amount that the deceased may have spent upon herself and what would become payable as taxes on the savings made and earnings therefrom. It would, therefore, be fair and just to take the loss to the claimants to be at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. As regards the multiplier to be adopted in this case considering the age of the claimants and the deceased, 14 would be the appropriate multiplier to be adopted. So computed, the claimants must be held entitled to and are hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,68,000 as compensation. The claimants shall in addition be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on this amount from the date of the application to the date of the amount of compensation awarded.

We have gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and find that those cases were decided on facts and circumstances of those cases as they existed and there is no parallel between those cases and the case in hand. Otherwise also, in cases of determination of compensation, the appellate court has to see whether the amount awarded by the learned Judge is fair and adequate or it is so low that it shocks the judicial conscience. We find that the learned single Judge had not gone wrong in enhancing the compensation to the figure as indicated above and no more than that. He has given good reasons for coming to that figure. We have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellants to take a different view in the matter to enhance the compensation any further. The claimants have been duly compensated on account of the death of the deceased.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.