Delhi High Court
Jaimal Singh vs Paramjit Singh & Ors. on 28 August, 1998
Author: S.N. Kapoor
Bench: S.N. Kapoor
ORDER S.N. Kapoor, J.
1. By these two appeals the claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation on account of death of their father and mother both in an accident.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
2.1 On 28.4.1991 at about 4.20 A.M. the deceased Sukhwant Singh was driving two wheeler Scooter No. DBG-7837. His wife Gurdeep Kaur and his son Rajinder Singh were sitting on the pillion on Shanker Road, Opposite Sanatan Dharam Mandir traffic light. Truck No. DIG-1698 came at a very fast speed without blowing horn from Pusa Chambery, hit and knocked down the scooterist Paramjit Singh was driving the truck rashly and negligently. Sukhwant Singh and Gurdeep Kaur died due to fatal injuries. However, Rajinder Singh suffered injuries but luckily escaped death.
2.2 The two deceased had left their two sons Jagjit Singh, aged 20 years, Rajinder Singh, aged 16 years and three daughters, namely, Jasbir Kaur, aged 29 years, Jaswinder Kaur, aged 22 years and Charanjit Kaur, aged 21 years.
2.3 The deceased Sukhwant Singh at the time of death was aged about 45 years and as a mason he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The deceased Gurdeep Kaur at the time of her death was aged about 40 years. She was self employed and by undertaking stitching work she was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs. eight lacs for the death of Sukhwant Singh and Rs. five lacs for the death of Gurdeep kaur as compensation against Paramjit Singh, the driver, M/s. Delhi Kota Roadways, the owner of the vehicle and National Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2.4 In both these matters it was held by the learned Tribunal that deceased Sukhwant Singh and Gurdeep Kaur died on account of the injuries suffered in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DIG-1698 by Paramjit Singh, respondent No.1. In so far as question of compensation is concerned for death of Sukhwant Singh compensation of Rs. 2.16 lacs and for death of Gurdeep Kaur compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved by the compensations awarded these two appeals have been filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record.
4. In so far as compensation awarded on account of death of Sukhwant Singh is concerned the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the statements of appellants witnesses the income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs. 2500/- per month. I feel that this submission is misconceived for in the petition itself it is mentioned that he was earning Rs. 2000/- and if the petition indicates that he was earning Rs. 2000/- then any evidence indicating income over and above the same could not be accepted. Seeing that the assessment was to be made with effect from the year 1991 the assessment at the rate of Rs. 1800/- appears to be appropriate and as such I reject this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The next contention was that the age of Sukhwant Singh was 42 years at the time of his death. According to post-mortem report age of Sukhwant Singh was 48 years. According to photocopy of ration card issued on 13.8.1980 his age was 45 years. Taking into consideration the post-mortem report, the ration card and the statement of witnesses it appears that the assessment of age at 45 years was proper. It may be mentioned that there could be a variation of about 2 to 3 years in the assessment of age by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. Consequently, I proceed to decide on assumption that the deceased had completed 45 years at the time of his death.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Khodabhai Bhagwanbhai and Ors. Vs. Hirji Tau and Anr., , Krishna Bai Vs. B.S. Desai, 1981 ACJ 263, Purnima Vindal & Ors. Vs. Chater Mal & Ors., 1995 ACJ 884, United India Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Kailash Rao, 1 (1996) A 251 (DB) and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., 1 1996 A 592.
7. Taking into consideration all the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the age of the deceased Sukhwant Singh, ages and nature of dependency of the appellant and all other attending circumstances, it appears that compensation awarded was appropriate and just and there does not appear any room for any enhancement. If compensation is calculated by treating 2 units for major and 1 unit for minors and taking his income even at Rs. 2200/- per month and also taking into consideration that Gurdeep Kaur is no more dependent, monthly dependency would come to Rs. 1200/-, after deduction of Rs. 200/- which was to be spent on maintenance of scooter. Yearly dependency would be Rs. 14,400. If 15 years multiplier is applied, as submitted the compensation would be about the same amount. Accordingly, I do not feel that there is any occasion for enhancement of compensation in FAO 94/97.
8. In so far as FAO 95/97 relating to compensation on account of death of Smt. Gurdeep kaur is concerned the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Gurdeep kaur was aged about 40 years at the time of her death and she was earning about Rs. 1000/- per month by stitching work at home. The learned Tribunal in absence of any corroboration from any independent sources, oral or documentary, rejected the contention that she was earning.
9. The love, affection and protection of a mother cannot be evaluated in terms of money, for the mother continues to work for the betterment of her children throughout her life excepting when she is incapacitated by illness etc. The learned Tribunal was also justified in such circumstances to assume that the deceased would have continued to provide such services to her two young and not so young children. In the social conditions of Indian society if a woman is put in a position of house wife her role as a house wife cannot be under estimated. In the absence of a house wife engagement of a servant for cooking, cleaning of house, washing clothes etc. by itself will result in loss of Rs. 700/- per month, particularly keeping in view the minimum rate of hourly wages. It has to be taken into consideration that her services are available 24 hours a day and not confined to hourly visits. However, taking into facts and circumstances of this case I feel that while dependency has been properly assessed I do feel that the multiplier has not been properly applied. She was said to be about 40 years of age at the time of his death. His son Rajinder Singh was only 7 years of age at the time of her death and taking into consideration that he would be married at 25 years at least he would have remained dependent on his mother for a period of about 18 years. Therefore I feel that multiplier should be increased from 12 years to 15 years. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get the compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,26,000/-. Out of sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- the appellant No.2, married daughter shall get Rs. 6000/-. Seeing the age of appellant No.1 and the fact that he was 19 years of age at the time of death of their parents I feel it would be appropriate to award him a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Appellant No.3 Jaswinder Kaur and appellant No. 4 Charanjit Kaur, the two daughters shall get Rs. 20,000/- each. Jagjit Singh, appellant No. 5 shall get Rs. 20,000/- and Rajinder Singh, appellant No. 6 shall get Rs. 25,000/- in view of his prolonged dependency. All of them are also entitled to get interest 12% from the date of filing of the application. Respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to make the payment of the awarded compensation as ordered aforesaid after adjusting the amount which has already been paid within within a period of 30 days. FAO 95/97 is allowed accordingly.
10. Copy of this judgment be placed on the file of FAO No. 94/97.
11. Copy of this order be sent to learned Tribunal for information and for execution in case of necessity.