Mahendra Singh and Another vs Jagirsingh and Others

V.A. Mohta, J.—The appellants, original plaintiffs, Mahendra Singh, aged 45 years and his wife Smt. Mahender Kaur, aged 40 years sued the respondents Jagirsingh son of Shersingh, truck-driver, Suratsingh son of Sardar Bhagat Singh, truck-owner and the Insurance Company in forma-pauperis for the claim of a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as damages under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of their son Kulwantsingh, aged 23 years, alleging that the death was caused by rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 1 Jagirsingh, who was driving the truck belonging to respondent No. 2 Suratsingh in the regular course of his employment.

The Trial Court after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the death was due to rash and negligent driving. Decree for damages was granted but only to the extent of Rs. 13,500/- with future interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by reduction of the claim, the present appeal has been filed which is restricted to additional claim of Rs. 10,000/-.

Having regard to the following proved positions, it seems to u� that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur has committed a grave error in reducing the claim only to the extent of Rs. 13,500/-. As the appeal is restricted to Rs. 10,000/- more, the only question that arises for our determination is whether atleast to that extent the appellants are entitled to the relief:

(i) Kulwantsingh was the eldest son who had taken School education and was working as a diesel mechanic after taking training.

(ii) His monthly salary was Rs. 375/-.

(iii) Brothers and sisters of Kulwantsingh were not earning.

(iv) Kulwantsingh was also doing some over-time work. He was healthy, unmarried and not addicted to any vice and had resolved not to marry till his sisters were married.

(v) The grand-father and grand-mother of Kulwantsingh had died at the age of 80 and 75 respectively.

The Trial Court held that considering the probable liabilities of a future married life and other factors, the amount which the deceased would have spent on the plaintiffs could not be more than Rs. 75/- per month. Average age in the family according the LC was 60 years and hence the father aged 45 years would have got benefit of Rs. 75/- per month for 15 years and so calculated the amount of Rs. 13,500/-was arrived at. We are unable to see any logic or basis for this reasoning and finding. In our judgment, the whole concept to damages, in such circumstances, has not been properly appreciated by the learned Judge. The calculation of Rs. 75/- per month and so also for 15 years only is totally arbitrary. In our judgment, the damages would far exceed even Rs. 23,500/- in totality even at admitted positions. Several factors such as possibility of increase of remuneration with experience and future prospects have not been at all taken into consideration.

Having regard to all these circumstances, we allow the appeal and modify the decree passed by the Trial Court by increasing the decretal amount from Rs. 13,500/- to Rs. 23,500/-. We see no reason to divide the amount between the husband and wife. Decree be modified accordingly. In place of the decree passed by the Trial Court, the following decree is substituted:

(1) Defendant do pay a sum of Rs. 23,500/- and proportionate costs of the suit as well as of the appeal to the plaintiffs and bear their own.

(2) The amount of Rs. 23,500/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.