Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sudesh Widow Of Parshotam Lal And ... vs Paramjit Singh And Ors. on 16 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: I(2001)ACC73, II(2001)ACC442, 2001ACJ581, (2000)125PLR841
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") seeking enhancement of the Award. The claim petition was filed in connection with the death of Parshotam Lal. Appellant No.1 is the widow of Parshotam Lal whereas appellant No.2 is his minor son. According to the appellants the deceased was travelling in car No. HYK-6788 from Karnal to Panipat alongwith Darshan Singh and Subhash. The car was being driven by Kanshi Ram. One Lala Ram boarded this car at the bus stand of Babarpur Mandi. Darshan Singh and Subash were sitting on the front seat whereas the deceased Parshotam Lal and Lal Ram were sittinG on the back seat of the car. It is the further case of the claimants that the car was being driven on the left side of the road and at a about 11.00 P.M. when the car reached in the area of village Faridpur, a truck bearing No.PBV-3393 (being driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.1) came from the opposite side at a very fast speed and struck against the car and as a result of this accident Parshotam Lal died at the spot.
2. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was also working as a Driver and was earning Rs. 750/- per month and he was also earning Rs. 1,000/- from his agricultural work. Thus the monthly income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 1,750/-. The claimants claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation,
3. Respondents No.1 and 2, in their joint written statement took up a stand that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and, therefore, they are not liable for any amount of compensation. Respondent No.3, Oriental Insurance Company Limited took the stand that this claim petition was not maintainable and that it was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. They have also pleaded estoppel and the contravention of the terms of the Insurance policy. The Insurance of the truck in question by respondent No.3 was of course admitted. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles i.e. car and truck and allowed Rs. 38,400/- as compensation. This appeal is filed for enhancement of the compensation as stated above.
4. The question to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper or not. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was working as a Driver and he was also doing agricultural work. The Tribunal observed that the appellants have not been able to prove that the deceased was doing the work as Driver and they have failed to produce any corroborative evidence to that effect. Moreover, they have not produced even the driving licence of the deceased which could have corroborated the case of the appellants that the deceased was doing the work as Driver. The reasons given by learned Tribunal on this point can be accepted because the Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong in deciding this question when even the driving licence of the deceased was not produced.
5. This thus takes me to the agricultural income of the deceased. Ex.Pl is a copy of jamabandi for the year 1983-84 showing Bhola Ram as owner of 25 Kanals 13 marlas of land. Bhola Ram is father of the deceased. The Tribunal has held that Bhoja Ram had three sons and that Bhola Ram has died, and, therefore, the deceases was cultivating 8/9 kanals of land. There is nothing wrong with this finding. The Tribunal also held that the land must have been inherited by the petitioners after his death but the deceased, however, had supervisory role to play in doing this agricultural work and for the same the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- However merely because the land can be inherited by the claimants, it cannot be said that the supervisory role of the deceased has to be treated as negligible. In the case of Rukshamaniben Wd/o Govindbhai Chaturbhai Patel and Ors. v. Masaraji Amaraji Thakore and Ors., 1982(1) Vol.23 Gujarat Law Reporter 525, it has been held that an agriculturist can be said to be owner-manager of the holdings and that his services cannot be compared with an ordinary manager and that evaluation of earning of agriculturist should be made on the basis of income available to the family by the toil of the deceased as owner-cum-manager.
6. The owner of the land not only supervises but he supervises the same better then a paid manager. Hence the case of the deceased is different distinguishes from that of a labourer. Considering the above reasons, 1 now go to consider whether the figure arrived at by the learned Tribunal is correct or not. learned Tribunal has observed that the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 300/- In view of the above principles and the area of land in question, I find that this figure is much lower than as it should. Some guess work is required to be done in coming to a conclusion regarding the income of the deceased. However, the guess work should not be arbitrary. When the basic facts are available such as area of the land in question etc. a reasonable guess can be made. In the present case it will be proper to hold that the deceased must be earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from the agricultural work. The following two factors must also be taken into consideration while assessing the income of a person:
1. Possibility of increase in income;
2. Fall in the price of money.
7. In the case of Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors., 1978 (Vol. XIX) Gujarat Law Reporter 492 it was held as under:-
".....The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessment of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations....."
8. In the present case there is no evidence shown to me from which it can be accepted that there could have been rise in the earning capacity of the deceased. However, fall in the price of money can be accepted and in the absence of any data regarding the same, income of the deceased can be said to be at Rs. 1,200/- per month. For the purpose of calculating the loss caused to the family because of the accident, taking l/3rd of the amount for the expenses of the deceased himself, the net loss of dependency would be Rs. 800/- per month i.e. Rs. 9,600/- per year. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 years which is quite proper, considering the age of the deceased. With this multiplier the amount comes to Rs. 1,53,600/-. In addition to the amount of loss of income, a non-pecuniary amount can also be awarded for the loss of expectation in life. It will be proper to award Rs. 20,000/- under the said head. Therefore, the amount to be awarded can be summarised as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 1,53,600.00
2. Loss of expectations in life Rs. 20,000.00 Total Rs. 1,73,600.00 Less the amount already awarded Rs. 38,400.00 Balance Rs. 1,35,200.00
9. No further ground has been argued.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the above extent and the appellants are awarded a further amount of Rs. 1,35,200/- with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation of the same with proportionate costs. The appellants shall be entitled to this amount in equal shares. The whole of the amount awarded to appellant No.2 shall be invested in any nationalised bank in the town/city/village where the appellant resides till he attains the age of majority or a period of five years whichever is later. Fifty per cent of the amount awarded to appellant No. 1 shall also be invested for a period of five years in the bank as stated above. The bank shall not allow withdrawal of the amount before the investment periods are over. However, it shall pay the interest thereon as and when it falls due to the appellants.