Surjit Kaur vs Garmail Singh and Another

K.S. Tiwana, J.—The facts leading to the filing of this Letters Patent appeal are that Milkha Singh deceased, who was living with his daughter Surjit Kaur at Pul Sudhar in district Ludhiana, was lying asleep on the night intervening May 30 and 31, 1969, at a distance of about 40 feet from the main road. Military truck No. TP 1302 after colliding with two kiker trees over-ran the cot on which Milkha Singh was sleeping. Because of the crushing by the truck, Milkha Singh died there and then. Gurmail Singh, who in a drunken condition was at the steering wheel of the truck and his two unconscious companions, were removed from the truck. On prosecution for causing the death of Milkha Singh due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. TP 1302, Gurmail Singh was convicted by the criminal Court. Surjit Kaur Appellant, who is the daughter of Milkha Singh and with whom he was living at the time of his death, filed a petition u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (herein after called the Tribunal) claiming compensation as the life of her father had been cut short by rash and negligent act of Gurmail Singh. Gurmail Singh, who is an employee of the Defence Force, was driving the truck in the discharge of his duties. He alongwith the Union of India were arrayed as Respondent.

The claim was contested by the Union of India on the ground that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck without any authority and the deceased was also negli'' gent in sleeping at a distance of only 40 feet from the main road. The Respondents also contested the claim of the Appellant on the ground that she was not dependent on the deceased.

The Tribunal found that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and that he was killed due to the rash and negligent driving of Gurmail Singh. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was not entitled to any compensation on the ground that she was not dependent on the deceased. It was also found by the Tribunal that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck at the time of the accident without any authority. On appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the findings of the Tribunal and held that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck involved in the accident with the permission and authority of the Union of India. It was also held that the Appellant being the daughter of Milkha Singh deceased with whom he was living was entitled to compensation. The monthly income of the deceased, who worked as a Vaid, was assessed at Rs. 200/- per mensem, out of which he was expected to give Rs. 100/- per mensem to the Appellant. The life of Milkha Singh deceased was taken to be 63J years at the time of his death. The claim of Rs. 7,800/-as expected pecuniary loss and Rs. 2,200/-for the loss of the love and affection was allowed to the Appellant by the learned Single Judge. The Appellant has approached this Court under Clause X of the Letters Patent for enhancement of the compensation.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has addressed up on four points for the enhancement of the compensation: (i) that the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem, but the learned Single Judge has reduced it to Rs. 200/- only on surmises; (ii) that the age of the deceased was wrongly assessed on the higher side by the learned Single Judge; (iii) that- the amount of Rs. 2,200/- allowed by the learned Single Judge for the loss of the love and affection was too low; and (iv) that no interest was allowed on the amount of compensation.

The case setup by the Appellant is that the deceased was running a workshop and also worked as a Vaid (medical practitioner). The workshop is named as "Gurcharan Auto Engineering Works". Since the Workshop is under the name of Gurcharan Singh, son-in-law of the deceased and husband of the Appellant, it was rightly held by the learned Single Judge that it was in fact run by her husband. It was accepted by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge that the deceased acted as a Vaid. He was not qualified person nor he paid any income tax. Assessing the evidence liberally the learned Single Judge took the income of the deceased at Rs. 200/- per mensem. We do not find any material in the testimony of the witnesses produced by the Appellant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge.

The Appellant gave the age of the deceased as 55 years. In her statement recorded on July 17,1970, she stated that she was married in the year 1944 at the age of 17 years. On the date of accident she was about 42 years of age. When calculated in the light of these facts the age of her father at the time of her birth comes to about 13 years. This fact cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge took the view that even if she was the first child, Milkha Singh could not be less than 20or 21 years of age at the time of her birth. We do not think this conclusion is in any way erroneous. At the time of the post-mortem the doctor on approximation assessed the age of Milkha Singh as 60 years. From the approximate assessment of the doctor, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge are supported and we do not find any reason to reduce the age of the deceased as found by the learned Single Judge.

Milkha Singh deceased was living with the Appellant. The love and affection between the father and children is difficult to be described. The living of Milkha Singh with the Appellant shows the existence of great love and affection between the two. In these circumstances the compensation of Rs. 2,200/- allowed by the learned Single Judge on this account appears to us to be on the lower side. In our view Rs. 4,000/-compensation for the loss of love and affection in this connection should suffice the ends of justice.

It appears that the claim of interest was not made before the learned Single Judge. We direct that the Appellant shall be paid interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to her from the date of application.

To the extent indicated above, the appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, we however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.