Punjab-Haryana High Court
Urmila Devi And Ors. vs Baljit Singh And Ors. on 28 October, 1988
Equivalent citations: II(1989)ACC249, 1990ACJ229
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, on April 24,1984 allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,854/- to Urmila Devi and others. This award is under challenge in this appeal filed by Urmila Devi and others.
2. Ram Parkash, husband of Urmila Devi appellant, along with Sham Lai and Kul Bhushan was going on a rickshaw near bypass Samrala at Ludhiana on January 27, 1983. Truck No. MWT 2025 driven by Baljit Singh came from behind at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It hit the rickshaw which turned turtle. The occupants of the rickshaw fell down. Ram Parkash was crushed by the truck. The others also suffered injuries. Ram Parkash was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana where he was treated for two days. He died there. He was aged about 37 years and earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from his business of hand-pump and pipe fittings. Urmila Devi and her minor children claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the claim petition which was filed against Baljit Singh, driver of the truck; Pal Singh and Didar Singh, owners of the truck; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with whom the truck was insured. The respondents filed separate written statements contesting the claim petition. They denied rash and negligent driving of the truck causing the death. They also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month or that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was spent on his treatment. It was alleged that the driver of the truck did not possess any driving licence and liability of the insurance company was disputed. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
(1) Whether Ram Parkash died on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. MWT 2025 driven by Baljit Singh respondent No. 1? (2) To what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and from whom? (3) Relief
3. Under issue No. 1, it was held that Ram Parkash died on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Baljit Singh respondent. Under issue No. 2, the claimants were allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,854/-. The liability of the insurance company was fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is not challenged in this appeal and the same is, therefore, affirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that statement of Urmila Devi, AW 4, with respect to the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/-, which was unrebutted, should have been accepted by the Tribunal and thereafter dependency of the appellants should have been determined. This contention cannot be accepted. In the claim petition, the monthly income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 1,000/- per mensem. Urmila Devi appeared as AW 4. She did not state anything about the income of the deceased although she stated that Ram Parkash was doing the business of boring shop (installation of tubewells). She further stated that Ram Parkash used to give her Rs. 1,000/- per month for expenditure regularly. During cross-examination, she denied that she was maintaining any account regarding contribution of Rs. 1,000/- to the family by her husband. She further denied that her husband was giving Rs. 300/- or Rs. 400/- per month towards the maintenance of the family. No evidence was produced by the respondents in this respect. It is difficult to accept the statement of Urmila Devi, AW 4, that her husband was giving her Rs. 1,000/- per month regularly for the maintenance of the family when the entire income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 1,000/-, as mentioned in the claim petition. The element of exaggeration on the part of the claimants to inflate the income to get enhanced compensation thus cannot be ruled out. Much reliance was placed on the observation of the Tribunal in the award that income of the deceased could not be more than Rs. 1,000/-, in support of the argument addressed by counsel for the appellants that income of the deceased should be taken at Rs. 1,000/- or near about. This contention again cannot be accepted. When the evidence of the claimant cannot be accepted on its face value in such like cases element of rough estimation has to be introduced. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of the business of the deceased held that his earning capacity was to the tune of Rs. 600/- per mensem. Apart from the statement of Urmila Devi, as referred to above, nothing more has been addressed by counsel for the appellants to modify this finding of the Tribunal. The appellate court is to be slow in reversing the finding on such like matter which is based on rough estimate. Thus, it is taken that the earning capacity of Ram Parkash deceased was Rs. 600/- p.m. and deducting one-third there from, the dependency of the family members of the appellants is determined at Rs. 400/-per month. To this extent, the finding of the Tribunal is affirmed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal was in error in applying twelve as multiplier. According to him, at least twenty should be applied as multiplier. There is force in this contention. The Supreme Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam 1987 ACJ 172 (SC), allowed twenty-five as multiplier in the case of deceased aged about 45 years and deducted one-fifth there from as the amount was being paid in lump sum and taking into consideration uncertainties of life. Thus factually multiplier comes to twenty. Relying upon this decision, this court in Seema Chawla v. Mohinder Singh 1988 ACJ 281 (P&H), allowed a multiplier of twenty in the case of deceased aged about 40 years. In the present case, as already noticed above, Ram Parkash deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of his death. Urmila Devi, his widow, is aged about 33 years. Other appellants are minors. According to Urmila Devi, AW 4, father of Ram Parkash is aged about 80 years and is maintaining good health. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and ratio of the decisions referred to above, twenty is considered a suitable multiplier in this case. Taking the dependency of the appellants at Rs. 400/- per mensem and applying twenty as multiplier, the compensation would come to Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 400 X 12 X 20).
6. Urmila Devi stated that she spent about Rs. 2,000/- on the cremation of Ram Parkash deceased and another sum of Rs. 2,253/- on medicines etc. Again taking into consideration some element of exaggeration, a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, a rounded figure, is allowed under these heads. Adding this amount, the total compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs. 1,00,000/-.
7. The Tribunal fixed liability of the insurance company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. With effect from October 1, 1982, the Motor Vehicles Act was amended and the liability was fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- in the case of a claimant. Thus, the insurance company would be liable to the entire amount of compensation as assessed above.
8. The Tribunal did not allow any interest on the amount of compensation awarded. The claimants would be entitled to 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/-. The award of the Tribunal is modified. The appellants are allowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be shared equally by the appellants with 12 per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of institution of the claim petition, i.e., February 21, 1983 till realisation. The amount of Rs. 15,000/-allowed in the interim award would be adjusted from the above amount. This award is made against the respondents who would be liable to pay the same severally and jointly. The share of minor-appellants would be deposited in the fixed deposit in the nationalised bank and would be paid to them on their attaining majority.