Punjab State and Another vs Pushpinder Kaur and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

CM No. 13641-CII of 2013

Delay of 124 days as explained in the application supported by affidavit is condoned.

FAO No. 3185 of 2013

This is an appeal brought by Punjab State and Managing Director, PUNBUS, as owners of the bus involved in the accident, challenging the award dated 18.10.2012 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short ''learned Tribunal''). Pushpinder Kaur and three others had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- for the death of Davinder Singh in a road side accident that took place on 06.07.2011. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,04,000/- in favour of the claimants.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants has contended that the income of the deceased has been wrongly taken at Rs. 4000/- per month. According to her, the compensation assessed in this case by the Tribunal is on the higher side. She has further contended that the award is not based on evidence and is liable to be set aside.

The claimants claimed Davinder Singh, deceased to be a 45 years old person, who was doing business in clothes and was running a medical store. His income was claimed to be Rs. 50,000/- per month from various sources. Finding no proof of the said income, learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month. In my opinion, in the year 2011 the income of Rs. 4000/- per month was even of an unskilled labourer and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 4000/- taken by learned Tribunal as income of the deceased is on the lowest side. No interference is, therefore, called for by this income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has taken the dependency of the claimants, who are four in number, at 3/4th of this income. I find no illegality in the same also. Among the claimants there is a widow, two children of the deceased and mother of the deceased. The mother of a person is his dependent and in the face of the fact that there are four dependents of the deceased, deduction of 1/4th from the income of the deceased in the name of his personal expenses is quite legal. The multiplier of 14 has been taken by the Tribunal and no exception can be taken to the same also because the deceased had been 45 years of age. In these circumstances, the compensation has been calculated on well established principles and I find that no exception could be taken to the same. Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, I dismiss the same in limine.