Smt. Navroop Kaur and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Pithly put the facts of this appeal are that the deceased was 33 years old and the claimants are his widow, two minor children and parents. The deceased was a Journalist and was getting a monthly pay of Rs. 645/-. The Claims Tribunal determined the dependency at Rs. 380/- per month and adopting a multiplier of 14 awarded Rs. 41,000/- as compensation to the wife and children and Rs. 6000/- to the parents. While deciding FAO No. 402 of 1982, filed by the claimants, the learned Single Judge applied a multiplier of 16 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 76,800/-. The wife and children were held entitled to get Rs. 60,000/- and parents Rs. 16,800/-.

The claimant-appellants'' learned counsel strenuously argued that in this case multiplier of 20 should have been adopted as the deceased was aged only 33 years. He also submitted that the dependency has been wrongly determined at Rs. 300/-. Since the deceased was to support a family of parents, wife and two minor children, an amount of Rs. 245/- should not have been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. He also pointed out that no compensation has been awarded for loss of estate and consortium.

The respondents'' learned counsel opposed the prayer of enhancing the multiplier, which, according to him, has been rightly applied considering the age of the deceased as well as of the claimants.

The learned Single Judge has applied a multiplier of 16. By amendment Act of 54 of 1994, which came into force with effect from November 14, 1994, the Second Schedule is inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per this Second Schedule, since the age of the deceased was 33 years, a multiplier of 17 would be appropriate to be adopted. We are taking this view by taking into consideration the amended law which is now introduced by the Parliament in order to protect the interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victim died. Since this is a benevolent legislation, in our considered view, the benefit of the aforesaid amendment should be given to the claimants.

So far as the dependency is concerned, since the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 645/-, only l/5th of his salary should have been deducted for his personal expenses. Thus, the dependency of the claimant-appellants should have been determined at Rs. 516/- per month. Accordingly, in our considered view, the claimant-appellants are entitled to get Rs. 1,05,264/- rounded off to Rs. 1,05,300/- as compensation from the respondents.

The claimant-appellants'' learned counsel has also rightly argued that no amount has been awarded to the claimants under the heads ''loss of consortium'' and ''loss of estate''. In our considered view, the claimant wife is entitled to Rs. 5,000/under the head '' loss of consortium'' and Rs. 2500/- under the head ''loss of estate''. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled to get Rs. 1,12,800/-. They are also held entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Out of this compensation, Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the parents and the widow and children would be entitled to get the remaining amount of compensation. Out of the amount payable to the widow and children, Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in fixed deposit receipt in a nationalised bank in the names of the minors for a period of five years. However, the interest accruing thereon shall be payable to the widow either monthly or quarterly or yearly as she wishes.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 5000/-.