Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla Devi And Ors. vs Haryana State And Ors. on 6 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: II(1993)ACC566, 1994ACJ490
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. Sat Parkash Prashar boarded a Haryana Roadways bus on 28.6.1981 from Chandigarh for going to Delhi. According to the claimants, the bus was packed with passengers and was being driven rashly and in negligent manner. It is near the Sales Tax barrier, Ambala City, that a truck was seen coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed. Since the bus was being driven slightly on the right side it did not give sufficient space to the truck coming from the opposite side and so it struck its hind portion with the incoming truck. As a result of it, Sat Parkash Prashar and another. co-passenger, Harbhagwant Singh Dhillon, received injuries. Right arm of both these persons was amputated. Prashar became unconscious and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala. Similarly, Harbhagwant Singh was also taken to the hospital. Prashar succumbed to his injuries a little later. The legal representatives of Prashar filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.
2. This claim was contested by the respondents vide joint written statement raising preliminary objections on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, petition being insufficiently stamped and bar of limitation. On merits, it was stated that the bus was being driven at a slow speed and in a cautious manner. It was further stated that both these passengers who suffered injuries were equally negligent as they held their arms outside the window of the bus.
The Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether Sat Parkash died on account of rash and negligent driving of Randhir Singh, driver, respondent No. 3, while driving bus No. HRM 8836 on 28.6.1981 at about 11.20 p.m.? OPP.
(2) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom? (3) Relief.
On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver on account of which Prashar died. Accordingly, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants. Under issue No. 2, i.e., with regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration the salary of the deceased at Rs. 1,603/- p.m., deducted the amount to the extent of 1/3rd of this amount towards his personal expenses and so assessed the pecuniary loss to the family at Rs. 1,069/- per month. Further taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 51 years, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10, thus assessing the total amount payable to the claimants at Rs. 1,28,280/-. In addition to this, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount found due was granted from the date of application till the realisation of the amount. The Tribunal further held that this amount is payable to claimant Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 only. The claim petition of Surinder Kumar and Asha, claimant Nos. 5 and 6, was dismissed as both of them were married and were not dependent upon the deceased.
3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. According to the appellants, the Tribunal had erred in law in applying a cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased on his carry home salary which is rather on the higher side. Since the deceased had been supporting a large number of persons, it is quite unthinkable that he was spending almost 1/3rd of his pay. At best, the Tribunal ought to have deducted not more than Rs. 100/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Secondly, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 10 only. Such an approach is contrary to the judicial pronouncements of this court.
4. In the absence of any assistance from the appellants or their counsel, I have perused the impugned award of the Tribunal as well as the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions.
5. I find sufficient merit in the plea of the appellants that the Tribunal has not applied the right multiplier to determine the compensation payable to the claimants. The approach of the Tribunal is contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case reported as Asha Rani v. Union of India 1983 ACJ 52 (P&H). This precise question as to whether age of the deceased is conclusive or a paramount consideration for determining the compensation payable to the dependants under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was considered by the Division Bench. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased is neither a conclusive nor a paramount factor in determination of the compensation unless the remaining years of life expectancy are less than the multiplier which is sought to be applied. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the normal life expectancy in this region can be safely fixed at 70 years. Since the deceased was about 50 years of age at the time of accident, the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 16 instead of 10. I accordingly modify the judgment of the Tribunal and thus determine the compensation payable to the claimants applying a multiplier of 16. However, as regards the appellants' contention that the Tribunal erred in imposing a cut of V3rd upon his carry home salary, the same appears to be quite reasonable. The amount so calculated comes to Rs. 2,05,248/-. This amount will further carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per. annum from the date of application till its realisation.
No order as to costs