Pritam Kaur and Others vs Mr. Kartar Singh and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Sant Ram died in a motor accident which took place on 24.10.1982. The wife and two daughters of the deceased filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 claiming compensation for his death. Respondents did not put in appearance despite being served through publication and were proceeded against ex parte. Ex parte award dated 4.1.1985 was passed by the Claims Tribunal. Thereafter on an application moved by respondent No. 2, ex parte award was set aside. Respondent 2 contested the petition by filing written statement. Respondent-Insurance Company also contested the petition. After the issues were framed, the parties produced their respective evidence. Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that Sant Ram died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Car No. PJL-6803 by respondent Kartar Singh. Claims Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 700/- per month and assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 350/- per month. Claims Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of the accident was 50 years of age, adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 67,200/- with interest by its award dated 8.6.1988. Hence this appeal at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in law in determining the income of the deceased as Rs. 700/- per month. Learned counsel also challenged the finding of the Tribunal whereby it assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 350/- per month only.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence available on the record. In the claim petition, the claimants stated that the deceased used to ply Rehri and earn a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Jagat Ram PW-3 stated that deceased was working in the same Rehri Market in which he is running his Rehri. He further deposed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1,200/- or Rs. 1,300/- per month and Sant Ram deceased used to earn about Rs. 1,000/- per month. Pritam Kaur widow of the deceased while appearing as PW-4 deposed that her husband used to earn a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month from plying a Rehri of Maniyari. Claims Tribunal after appreciating this evidence came to the conclusion that admittedly, the deceased was plying a Rehri of Maniyari and it was not unusual for a person running a Rehri at Maniyari to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month. Claims Tribunal, however, after coming to the conclusion that the deceased must be earning between Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 700/- per month. From a perusal of the evidence available on the record, I find that the evidence produced by the claimants in that behalf has gone unrebutted. Nothing could be brought in cross-examination of the witnesses aforesaid which may suggest that the deceased at the time of the accident was earning less than Rs. 1,000/- per month. Even otherwise at the relevant time, a person could earn a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month even by way of manual labour. The Claims Tribunal was thus not justified in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was only earning a sum of Rs. 700/- per month. Finding of the Claims Tribunal in that behalf is, therefore, reversed and it is held that the deceased at the relevant time was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

As regards dependency, the Claims Tribunal after holding that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 700/- per month, came to the conclusion that he must be spending 1/3rd of his income on himself and his contribution to his family must be around Rs. 420/- per month, but it after observing that since the claimants would be getting the amount of lump sum and there are other uncertain titles of life like the widow dying before the deceased and also remarrying, it is reasonable to fix the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 350/- per month. Even if the conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased must be spending 1/3rd of his income on himself is accepted, the dependency of the claimants having regard to the income of Rs. 1,000/- per month as held now, will work out to Rs. 700/- per month as against Rs. 350/- per month assessed by the Tribunal.

As regards multiplier, the Claims Tribunal chose a multiplier of 16 after recording a finding that Sant Ram deceased was 50 years of age on the date of the accident. This conclusion in my view, also cannot be accepted. At the age of 50 years, a multiplier of 10 would be just and fair. Finding of the Tribunal in that behalf is thus reversed accordingly.

In view of the above, the total compensation will work out to Rs. 84,000/- i.e. (Rs. 700 x 12 x 10). The award of the Claims Tribunal is thus modified to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 84,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment minus the amount, if any, already received by them. Appeal is disposed of in these terms. No costs.