High CourtsDivision Bench(1997) 04 P&H CK 0131

Raj Rani (Smt.) and Another vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 April 1997 · Citation: (1998) ACJ 1291 : (1997) 2 LLJ 1200 : (1997) 116 PLR 577 : (1997) 3 RCR(Civil) 398

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Jain, J · M.S. Liberhan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 678 of 1984 in F.A.O. No. 154 of 1979

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 398 words
1.

This Letter''s Patent Appeal arises put of an order dated September 7, 1984 in which compensation of Rs. 80,000/- was awarded to the claimants for causing death by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent-Company. Skeletal facts in order to dispose of the grievance which is limited only with respect to enhancement of compensation run thus: On October 27, 1976 deceased, aged 21 years, bread earner of the claimants, was killed leaving behind a widow of 19 years and one day old female child. The deceased was running his business in partnership with his father who con-cedingly was 75 years of age with no other issue or wife and who was living with the deceased. According to the income tax assessment order for the relevant year i.e., 1976-77, Exhibit P-14 has shown an income of Rs. 11,890/- per annum.

2.

In our considered view, in the circumstances, as observed in the earlier factual part of the judgment when ordinarily a father with no other person to support lives with his only son, the income of the father is generally reckoned to be the income of his son though on paper for various reasons for accounting purposes income may be shown separately,

3.

Be that as it is, it is axiomatic in the field of accident claim cases that to some extent rule of thumb has to be resorted to in order to determine just compensation. It would not be unreasonable or patently perverse if we assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 7000/- per annum which may be treated as dependency of the claimants on the deceased . Keeping in view the age of the deceased, age of his wife and one day old child and the income and other circumstances, it would be most appropriate that to arrive at a just compensation a multiplier of 20 is applied. Thus, the total compensation by adopting the multiplier of 20 on the dependency of Rs. 7,000/- per annum, comes to Rs. 1,40,000/- Adding Rs. 10,000/-for the loss of consortium, which at such a young age cannot be termed in any manner exhorbitant or excessive Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded as compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, we modify the order under appeal and award Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation with 12% interest from the date of application till the date of payment. No order as to costs.