Smt. Bhateri and Others vs Sampuran Singh and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.8.87 in FAO No. 527 of 1983 allowing partly the appeal of Smt. Bhateri and others and awarding them compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation and dismissing the cross-objections Nos. 18-C-II of 1984 of Sarjit Singh Vohra (owner of the offending truck).

Facts briefly stated are as follows :-

On 8.4.82 at about 4.30 P.M., Dharam Singh along with Surat Singh and Maan Singh was coming towards city Karnal from the Intensive Cattle development Project, Karnal on cycle. When he reached near the gate of District Courts, Karnal, truck bearing No. HRD-9295 coming from Ambala side being driven rashly and negligently by Sampuran Singh hit Dharam Singh. As a result of the impact, Dharam Singh received injuries. He died at the spot. Dharam Singh was 24 years old, He was Bull Attendant under Deputy Director, Intensive Cattle Development Project, Ka-nal drawing Rs. 1,000/- as salary. He left behind his wife Smt. Bhateri, father Fakar Singh @ Fakar Ram and mother Smt. Piari Devi. Truck was owned by Sarjit Singh Vohra and insured with New India Assurance Co. Dharam Singh was the sole bread winner of the family consisting of his wife, child and parents. Had his life not been cut short, he would have continued to maintain them. He would have benefited them to the tune of Rs. 3.60 lacs. For claiming this amount, they instituted claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (in short MACT), Karnal.

Respondents contested the claim petition. It was denied that Sampuran Singh was rash or negligent. He was going towards city Karnal at a slow speed and on his left hand side. When the truck reached near the gate of the District Courts on the G.T. Road, a cyclist abruptly emerged from the Court gate and without caring for inflow of traffic etc., took a turn and in the process, the pedal of his cycle struck the hind tyre of the truck. Resultantly, the cyclist became panicky and jumped from the cycle and fell down and struck against the pavement.

At the conclusion of the trial of the application, the MACT, Karnal found that Dharam Singh lost his life because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) Section 110-A Singh on 8.4.1982 at about 4.30 P.M. and that Dharam Singh''s carry home salary was Rs. 420.50 per month. Out of that amount, the deceased was keeping about Rs. 100/- with him as his own expense and was spending Rs. 99/- on his father. He was handing over Rs-260/- for the running of the household and the upkeep of the family i.e. his wife. He assessed Rs. 3,120/- as the annual dependency of Smt. Bhateri on her husband Dharam Singh. He applied ''16'' as multiplier. He assessed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Widow was in receipt of Rs. 5,000/- as ex-gratia grant. She was in receipt of another sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the group insurance scheme. He ordered that out of the amount of Rs. 59,000/- minus this sum of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 49,000/- would be paid as compensation to Smt. Bhateri and her child and her mother in law Smt. Piari Devi only. Out of the amount of Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-was ordered to be paid to Smt. Piari Devi while the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to Smt. Bhateri and the infant child. It may be mentioned here that Smt. Bhateri gave birth to a child after the death of her husband and the child is his off-spring. He awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of application till realisation. Amount was payable by the New India Assurance Co. alone, though the liability was adjudged to be joint and several of the owner, the driver and the insurer of the offending truck.

Not satisfied with the amount awarded by the MACT, Smt. Bhateri and others came up to this Court in FAO No. 527 of 1983. Not satisfied with the finding of the MACT that Sampuran Singh authored this accident while driving this truck which was owned by Sarjit Singh Vohra, Sarjit Singh Vohra came to this Court in Cross-Objection No. 1S-CII of 1984.

Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the finding of the MACT so far as the quantum of annual dependency was concerned. He, however, added Rs. 19,000/-to the amount of Rs. 40,000/- as her left that the deductions were unjust and uncalled for and impermissible in law. He awarded to Rs. 50,000/- to the widow, infant child and the mother of the deceased. He awarded interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum which had been awarded by the MACT. Out of the amount of compensation, he ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- with interest would be payable to the mother of the deceased while Rs. 40,000/- with interest would be payable to the widow and the infant child of the deceased: He affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that Sampuran Singh was responsible for bringing about death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving of the truck by him which was owned by Sarjit Singh Vohra, Cross-Objector.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co. in this LPA, and have gone through the record.

Dharam Singh was 24 years old at the time of his death. He was thus on the threshold of his life. He is survived by his mother, father widow aged 22 years and a child born posthumously. Post mortem report shows that all the organs of his body were healthy. He was thus in perfect health. Had his life not been cut short, he could have been expected to live upto 79 years. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not kept this fact into account that he had 40-45 years ahead of active life. He would have earned and natured his family. In this case, applying "16" as multiplier would tantamount to taking a very narrow and pedantic view of human life cut short at the age of 24 years. Shri Kashmiri Lal, Assistant in the office of Deputy Director, Incentive Cattle Development Project, Karnal (AW2) stated that the deceased was drawing Rs. 451.50 per mensum. Out of this amount Rs. 10/- was cycle allowance. Cycle allowance was part of his emoluments. Cycle allowance drawn by him should have been taken as part of emoluments. It was thus a misnomer not to view cycle allowance as part of his emoluments. He was maintaining a cycle and getting Rs. 10/-as allowance for maintaining it.

In our opinion, it would be just and proper to apply the multiplier of 18 in this case. Out of the amount of Rs. 451.50, deceased must have been spending on his wife, child and mother atleast Rs. 351.50 per a mensum. Normally, the bread winner keeps at heart the needs of other members of the family. He keeps his own needs aside. In our opinion, the widow, child and mother of the deceased should have been awarded Rs. 76,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. We order accordingly and award them Rs. 76,000/- as compensation. One share of the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 26,000/-shall go to Smt. Piari Devi, mother of the deceased with interest at the aforesaid rate. Four shares of the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 26,000/- shall go to the wife and the child of the deceased with interest as aforesaid.

The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. They shall get costs of Rs. 2,000/-