Smt. Krishna Rani and Another vs Swaran Singh and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.1987 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat whereby the appellants, legal representatives of deceased Bhushan Kumar have been awarded compensation of Rs. 36,000/- plus interest.

On 25th January, 1987, an accident took place in which Bhushan Kumar and Mohan Lal aged 24 years and 26 years respectively were killed. The parents of the two deceased preferred applications before the Tribunal which led to the passing of the impugned award. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, Nand Kishore and another, parents of Mohan Lal deceased filed FAO No. 155 of 1988 which was disposed of on September 19, 1991 by a single Judge of this Court. The learned Judge found that the father of the deceased was about 52 of age, and they were entitled to higher compensation on not only on the quantum of the dependency but also on the higher multiplier. It was accordingly held that the annual dependency was to be determined keeping in view two third of the annual income of the deceased and the multiplier at 16. The appeal against the award qua Mohan Lal was partly accepted.

The learned counsel for the appellants in the present case has also urged that an the case of his clients was similar to the case of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal, referred to above, he too should be granted the same compensation.

The Tribunal has found the dependency of the deceased only at Rs. 300/- per mensum which is Rs. 3600/- per year and utilizing the multiplier of 10 only, a sum of Rs. 36,000/- have been awarded.

As indicated above, while dealing with the case of Mohan Lal Deceased in FAO No. 155 of 1988, wherein the facts are almost identical, a multiplier of 16 has been applied. It has also been found on appreciation of the facts that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 1500/- per month and it would be proper by deducting one third of that and the dependency can be determined at Rs. 1000/- per month on the principle laid down in the Judgment rendered in FAO No. 155 of 1988, against which no appeal has so far been filed. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, urged that in case of death of a bachelor only one third of the dependency is to be kept in view while determining the compensation.

Mr. Bedi may be correct in his assertion but in view of the fact that in Mohan Lal''s case, FAO No. 155 of 1988, in the identical situation and arising out of the same accident & award, dependency of two third has been made out and a multiplier of 16 has been adopted. I feel no justification for denying the same in the present case, I, therefore, direct that the dependency of the appellants should be determined at Rs. 1,000/- per month and the compensation would be worked out keeping in view the multiplier of 16. The appellants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application in the Tribunal.

It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the memorandum of appeal, as originally filed, a claim for only Rs. 96,000/- had been made by the appellants but ultimately on becoming wiser by the decision in Mohan Lal''s case, (FAO No. 155 of 1988). C.M. No. 7922-CII of 1993 has been filed in the present appeal for permission to amend the memorandum of appeal in order to claim higher compensation.

Notice of this application was issued to the counsel for the respondents on 1.10.1993 and it was directed that the Civil Miscellaneous application be put with the main case.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Civil Miscellaneous application is allowed and the suitable amendment in the memorandum of appeal is permitted.

The appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.