Rajinder Pal Sharma and Another vs Jaswant Singh and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of F.A.Os. 34 and 35 of 1997 as the same are directed against two awards passed by the Claims Tribunal on 2.9.1996 in two separate claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which arose out of the same accident.

Ishwar Dutt and his wife Anju Bala died in a road accident which took place on 12.4.1993. Rajinder Pal Sharma, Chander Kanta Sharma, Jagmohan Sharma and Devi Nagar, father, mother, brother and married sister respectively of Ishwar Dutt filed a claim petition being MACT Case No. 19 of 1993 claiming compensation for the death of Ishwar Dutt. It was alleged that they were dependent upon Ishwar Dutt and thus entitled to compensation. Another claim petition being MACT Case No. 18 of 1993 was also filed by Rajinder Pal Sharma, Chander Kanta Sharma, Narinder Kumar and Santosh, father-in-law, mother-inlaw, father and the mother respectively of Anju Bala claiming compensation for the death of Anju Bala. They also alleged that they were dependent upon the deceased and thus entitled to compensation.

Claims Tribunal disposed of the two claim petitions by two separate awards passed on 2.9.1996. In claim petition 19 of 1993, Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that out of the four claimants, only the parents of Ishwar Dutt can be said to be dependent upon him and thus they are only entitled to compensation for the death of their son Ishwar Dutt and claimants Jagmohan Sharma and Devi Nagar who are brother and the sister of Ishwar Dutt cannot be said to be dependent on their brother Ishwar Dutt and they were thus not entitled to any compensation. Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on the record further came to the conclusion that deceased Ishwar Dutt was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month and out of this amount he might be spending Rs. 4,000/- on his own family and contributing only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his parents. The parents of Ishwar Dutt were thus held to be dependent on their son to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Claims Tribunal keeping in view the age of deceased and his parents, adopted a multiplier of 10 and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs.1,000 x 12 x 10) in favour of Rajinder Pal Sharma and Chander Kanta Sharma only, with interest.

Another Claim petition 18 of 1993 was dismissed by rejecting the claim of the claimants in toto. Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, father and the mother of Anju Bala deceased were not at all dependent on her and, therefore, they were not entitled to any compensation.

Peeling aggrieved by the two awards aforesaid, only the father and the mother (claimants 1 and 2 in both the claim petitions) of Ishwar Dutt filed these two appeals. F.A.O. 34 of 1997 was filed against the award passed in respect of the claim for the death of their son Ishwar Dutt for seeking enhancement of compensation. F.A.O. 35 of 1997 was filed challenging the award passed in the claim petition for seeking compensation in respect of the death of their daughter-in-law Anju Bala. The brother and the sister of Ishwar Dutt, Claimants 3 and 4 in Claim Petition 19 of 1993, and the parents of Anju Bala, Claimants 3 and 4 in Claim Petition 18 of 1993 have not preferred any appeal against the awards passed in their respective petitions.

It is in these circumstances the two appeals are being disposed of by a single order.

First, I take up F.A.O. 35 of 1993 preferred by the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of Anju Bala challenging the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellants in this appeal are not entitled to any compensation for the death of their daughter-in-law. As noticed above, Ishwar Dutt deceased was the son of the appellants and the appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation for his death and have been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The appellants were thus dependent upon their son and not on their daughter-in-law. Even if Anju Bala had been earning a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month as was proved on record, from her employment as Computer Programmer, she can be presumed to have been contributing her income or a part thereof to her husband and not to her parents-in-law, especially during the life time of her husband. The appellants thus cannot be said to be dependant upon their daughter in law, Anju Baia. In the circumstances, I see no scope for interference with the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in that behalf. F.A.O. 35 of 1997 is consequently dismissed.

As regards, F.A.O. 34 of 1997, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ishwar Dutt son of the appellants was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/per month as has been proved on record, but besides his wife Anju Baia was also employed as Computer Programmer in some private concern and was earning a sum of Rs. 1,860/- per month and having regard to this fact, it can safely be concluded that Ishwar Dutt son of the appellants was in a position to contribute a little more amount than Rs. 1,000/- per month as has been held by the Claims Tribunal, to his parents. Contention of the learned counsel in other words is that the dependency of the appellants on their son ought to have been assessed after clubbing the income of their son and of his wife Anju Baia and if this had been done, a higher amount of compensation would have been worked out. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently submitted that there is not an iota of evidence on the record of the claim petition in respect of compensation for the death of Ishwar Dutt that Anju Baia was earning anything and once that is so, no amount can be added on account of income of Anju Baia to the income of Ishwar Dutt for the purpose of assessing the dependency of the appellants on their son Ishwar Dutt.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has some merit. True that in the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of their son Ishwar Dutt, the claimants have not led any evidence in respect of the employment of Anju Baia wife of their deceased son or her income therefrom and this happens to be so because they filed two separate claim petitions, one claiming compensation for the death of their son and the other for the death of their daughter-in-law, Anju Baia and this is how the evidence regarding employment and the income of Anju Baia came to be led in the other claim petition as it was not required to be led in the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of their son. As per the finding of the Claims Tribunal in the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Anju Baia, it was proved that Anju Baia was earning a sum of Rs. 1,860/- per month from her employment as Computer Programmer. Both these cases relate to the same accident and even the claimants are also the same in the two claim petitions, and both Ishwar Dutt and Anju Baia were living together with the appellants and, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the parents of Ishwar Dutt who were in the age group of 55 years, were dependent on their son to the extent of Rs. 1,100/- per month. The compensation after taking the dependency of Rs. 1,100/- per month would thus come to Rs. 1,32,000/-.

The award passed in Claim Petition 19 of 1993 is, therefore, modified to the extent that the appellants in F.A.O. 34 of 1997 shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition minus the amount, if any, already received. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms.