Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs S. Ramulamma And Ors. on 15 December, 1988
Equivalent citations: I(1990)ACC168
JUDGMENT G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. Lorry bearing No. APT 5045 belongs to Mohd. Jahangir, 1st respondent in the O.P. The 2nd respondent Mogili Narsimlu drove the vehicle on the date of the accident, i.e., on.9.6.1981. The lorry was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Exh. 3-1 is the policy. The lorry was placed by the owner at the disposal of the District Collector for the use in the Panchayat Samithi elections. The Government delegated Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, counsel for the Haryana Urban Development Authority to put forth the plea of limitation against the claimant, in so far as this respondent was concerned on the ground that the Haryana Urban Development Authority had been impleaded as a party after the period of limitation for the filing of the claim application had expired. This is indeed a contention devoid of merit. The record would show that no such objection was pressed before the Tribunal and at any rate, once it was impleaded as a party, it will be deemed that it was impleaded with effect from the date of the claim application which was admittedly filed within time.
2. Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, the record shows that the mother, Birinder Kaur, was about 45 years of age when her son Harpreet Singh was killed in this accident and further that her circumstances were such that had he lived she would have been dependent upon him. Harpreet Singh deceased was only 22 years of age when he died. There is ample evidence to show that he was both a good student and a sportsman. After graduation, he was studying Law at the Punjabi University, Patiala. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that he had good prospects for gainful employment, whether in the legal profession or in some other field. He would have completed his Law studies in another year or so and in all likelihood would have started earning too by another two years.
3. There are no doubt many imponderable factors that emerge in a case like the present, where before the deceased could actually take up gainful employment an assessment has to be made of what his earnings could have been. The circumstances of the family and the status and achievements of the deceased would undoubtedly be relevant yardsticks for assessing his likely earnings. In the case of Harpreet Singh, there is the statement of claimant PW 5, Birinder Kaur to the effect that keeping in view the attainments of the deceased in sports and studies, there was the prospect of his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the present case, it would, at any rate, be reasonable to assume that had the deceased lived, he would soon have been earning Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month, which in the years to come would have increased top. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that if the deceased had lived, he would in due course have got married and raised a family and that would have imposed its own financial constraints upon him, reducing thereby the amount that would have been available to him for his mother's maintenance arid support. Keeping in view these aspects and also the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gunnit Kaur, 1979 ACJ170 (P&H), it would be reasonable to assess financial loss for the mother at about Rs. 500/- per month with a multiplier of '16'. So computed, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 96,000/- which may be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. The compensation payable to the mother Birinder Kaur Manshahia is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- which she shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
5. This appeal is thus accepted with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.