Himachal Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kapoor And Ors. vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 13 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994ACJ1183
JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.
1. The present appeals, preferred by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation') and by the claimants, along with cross-objections, are the result of a motor accident which took place on 26th July, 1980, in between 5.00 and 5.30 a.m. near railway crossing between Jabli and Dharampur on Kalka-Shimla National Highway. The bus owned by the Corporation with No. HPK 1464 was on night service coming from Dharamshala to Shimla. It started from Dharamshala at about 7.00 in the evening on 25th July, 1980. This bus was of a long route and, accordingly, two drivers used to operate it. One Hukam Chand, driver, drove the bus upto Ropar. However, according to the claimants, he brought the bus upto Kiratpur and handed it over to Ramesh Kumar, the second driver. The bus when reached near the place of accident it rolled down out of the road resulting in causing fatal injuries and other injuries to various occupants of the bus. This accident has been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of Ramesh Kumar, driver, who also lost his life in the said accident. Various claim petitions by the legal representatives of the deceased and by injured persons were submitted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan, in whose jurisdiction the said accident took place.
2. The Corporation, an autonomous body, was owning the bus. All the claim petitions have been contested. In so far as the death and injuries caused to the various occupants of the bus are concerned the same were not denied by the Corporation. However, its main defence, as pleaded, has been that the bus was being plied properly by the driver and no negligence was there on the part of the driver of the bus concerned. It was also pleaded that the driver, Ramesh Kumar, had taken rest prior to his taking over as driver from Hukam Chand who drove the bus upto Ropar. According to the Corporation, the accident took place due to sudden failure of the headlights of the bus and consequently the driver could not know in time that the vehicle had gone off the road. It was also pleaded that it was dark and foggy and absence of parapet at the point of accident further contributed to the accident. The negligence on the part of the driver has been denied and, according to the Corporation, the accident was the result of vis major.
3. The claim petitions, arising out of the aforesaid accident, were initially disposed of by the two Presiding Officers who happened to be posted at the relevant time at Solan and were discharging the functions of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It may not be essential to refer to the particular issues framed in all the claim petitions but the fact remains that the issues framed in each claim petition covered the pleadings of the parties with respect to the alleged negligence on the part of the driver which was the main cause of the accident coupled with the quantum of compensation the claimants were entitled to.
4. The aforesaid appeals and cross-objections are being dealt with in the same judgment on the sole ground that the original claim petitions have arisen out of the same accident with almost similar pleadings pertaining to the rash and negligent driving of the driver being the sole cause of the accident. Not only that, there are some common questions of law and facts involved in all these cases which also warrant a common judgment dealing with these aspects of the matter.
5. At the very outset we would like to take up those common questions of law and facts relevant in the present cases which would affect the decision on merit of each individual case.
6. Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the Corporation, has very strongly contended at the very outset that the claimants would be legally entitled to the compensation asked for by them in case the death or bodily injury attributed to the present accident could be legally connected with the rash and negligent driving of the deceased bus driver. According to Mr. Khanna, learned counsel appealing for the Corporation, this aspect of the matter has not been proved legally on record and on that score the compensation either to the legal representatives of the deceased passenger/passengers or to the injured cannot be granted. It is not so simple a matter as has been contended on behalf of the Corporation. As a matter of fact, it requires a proper scrutiny of the evidence examined and also of the law applicable in such circumstances.
7. Apart from the factum of negligence attributed to the driver of the ill-fated bus, there are also certain other common factors required to be gone into in all these cases before the factum of grant of compensation in each individual case is appreciated.
8. The common points involved in all these cases which require determination by us can briefly be detailed as below:
(1) The first and foremost common point involved in all cases is whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver which was the cause for causing fatal as well as bodily injuries to the occupants of the bus;
(2) In a fatal accident the compensation to the legal representatives is to be awarded on the basis of their dependency upon the deceased. In a given circumstance, after coming to a definite conclusion pertaining to the actual dependency amount, what would be the factors to be taken into consideration for applying a particular multiplier in a particular case;
(3) Whether interest is to be allowed to the claimants? If so, at what rate and from which date?
9. After giving answers to the aforesaid common points for determination, each individual case can thereafter be taken for the determination of awarding of compensation. We now propose to take the aforesaid common points for their decision on the basis of the facts and law involved therein.
Point No. 110. In a case of present nature where the night bus services are plied by the Corporation, it becomes the duty of the Corporation as well as that of the driver of the vehicle to take extra necessary care while plying the vehicle. It might be correct that plying a motor vehicle at night on a hilly road is more safer inasmuch as the lights of a vehicle can be noticed at a distance and also on various turns of the hilly road which makes the driver of a bus to be careful in advance and this aspect in a way reduces the possibility of an accident by collision. Again, it may always be kept in mind and this fact should not be lost sight of that the human body can be put to more work and labour during daytime than in the night-time. It is a natural phenomenon that the day is meant for working and the night for rest. The rest to the body is most essential as it increases the efficiency of the body.
11. A driver is required to be efficient physically and mentally also. His reflexes work normal in case his body and mind had been provided sufficient rest in order to put in work more efficiently on the following day. Needless to say, a sleepless night adversely affects the mental and physical condition of the body, more so, the reflexes of a driver who happened to drive the vehicle at night hour. A driver not having proper rest, as is required for his body in case he happens to drive the vehicle at night, definitely is liable to commit some error because of reduced efficiency affecting his reflexes adversely. In such a case the general efficiency of the driver will not carry any weight whatsoever in case of a little doze of sleep while driving, can take the lives of the occupants of the bus. The driver's efficiency in such eventuality will not be of any help. The responsibility and the care to be taken in the aforesaid background is much more upon the owner as well as on the driver of the motor vehicle.
12. 'Negligence' can be termed to be an omission to do something which a reasonable person guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable person would not do. It is an inference to be drawn on the basis of the circumstances proved on record.
13. The present accident took place on the National Highway which indicates that the road was not at all narrow and was wide enough. A driver who is driving a motor vehicle on the Highway must drive the vehicle with a reasonable care and the degree of such care should be more when a driver was plying a night service. He is required to observe strictly the traffic regulations and the rule of the road. A driver is duty-bound to keep a good look in all the directions of the road and also in front of him. In a case of motor vehicle there is always the existence of a legal duty cast upon the driver while driving the vehicle and the amount of care to be taken by the driver is always more in a case of the present nature.
14. While appreciating the factum of negligence in a particular case and especially in a case where the accident is not the result of collision of two vehicles but involving the sole vehicle, the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is to be ascertained. This maxim is not a rule of law. It does not at all alter the general rule that the onus to prove the negligence rests upon the parly alleging negligence but it comes into play in cases where the exact cause of accident is not known and the rest can speak for itself so as to prove the inferences of negligence or laches upon the opposite party. It is on the face of the case that the doctrine is applicable and in case it is so, there is presumption that the accident was caused due to negligence. In a nutshell, where the accident speaks for itself the principle of res ipsa loquitur can safely be applied.
15. Before the evidence examined in these cases before the Tribunal can be appreciated we would like to refer to some precedents touching the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
16. Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Puni Devi 1993 ACJ 998 (HP), is a Division Bench judgment of our own High Court which has described the principle of res ipsa loquitur. In this case the facts were that on 28th February, 1981, at 8.15 a.m. the ill-fated bus started its journey from Kotgarh to Rampur. When the bus reached Nirath, it developed some snag and could not proceed further and the conductor brought a mechanic from Rampur who could remove the snag by conducting necessary repairs and thereafter it was decided to bring back the bus to Kotgarh from Nirath as no time was left to continue further journey. The bus had hardly covered a distance of 14 km. when at a place near Bhuti Mor it rolled down while negotiating a curve. As a result of the accident a number of passengers travelling in the bus suffered injuries and 18 out of them lost their lives. The driver and the conductor also died in the accident.
17. The learned Judges while dealing with the case of negligence made the following observations contained in para 21 of the judgment.
Applying the ratio of these judgments to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the principle of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in the present case. There is no dispute that the road was being used for vehicular traffic since long. Even (he driver Prem Singha was plying bus on the same route in the past. The width of the road at the place of the accident was more than 12 feet and no driver had ever complained in the past that it was difficult to negotiate the curve. In these circumstances, if the accident had taken place, it speaks for itself that it was due to the negligence of the driver. The principle applies in the present case and it is for the H.R.T.C. to rebut the presumption of negligence by giving satisfactory explanation that the accident had not happened due to the negligence of the driver. The plea of sagging of the road taken by the H.R.T.C. is not proved on record and is apparently a result and not the cause though it has not been shown how much portion of the road had sagged. The cause is taking the bus to the edge of the road which is nothing but sheer negligence of the driver.
18. In the present, case the bus rolled down while being plied on a National Highway. The Corporation, no doubt, has taken the plea of vis major by pleading that the lights of the bus went off all of a sudden and on account of darkness and foggy atmosphere the bus rolled down without there being any negligence on the part of the driver. This aspect of the matter has to be proved by the Corporation which would be taken up later on while discussing the evidence examined in the present case before the Tribunal.
19. Another case decided by a Division Bench of our own High Court, Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Himi Devi 1981 ACJ 365 (HP), can safely be cited. A portion of para 4 of the judgment is relevant which runs as under:
In the circumstances of this case the maxim of res ipsa loquitur applies. The buses are not supposed to leave the road and roll down into the khuds. If they do so, a heavy burden lies only on the appellant to show that all reasonable care had been taken and there was no negligence. These facts are within the knowledge of the appellant which he should have come forward with.
20. In Arvind Singh Mann v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 1990 ACJ 647 (HP), the facts giving rise to the accident were that bus No. HPN 594 owned by H.R.T.C. was being driven by a driver and as soon as the bus reached a place 3 km. away from Mandi towards Shimla on 28th August, 1980, it had met with an accident at 3.30 a.m. and the claimants pleaded that the driver was driving the vehicle negligently at an excessive speed and he was also under the influence of liquor. But, on the other hand, the Corporation denied the negligence attributed to the driver and it was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of sudden failure of the lighting system in the bus which could not be discovered by use of reasonable care. It was the case of the Corporation that such a defect which was latent could not have been detected with reasonable care and that in addition the weather was foggy.
21. On evidence it was found that the bus was being driven at a high speed and the road at the place of accident was quite broad and it could accommodate free movement of two buses simultaneously. It was held that the rashness and the negligence of the driver of the vehicle was quite clear when despite this kind of road the vehicle went from left to the right side of the road and hit the parapet before rolling down into the khud. The plea of the Corporation, on the basis of the evidence, was held to be completely unacceptable. It was held that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that in case the driver had been vigilant and alert the accident could have been avoided. The learned Judge was of the view that even if it was accepted that the weather was foggy more care was expected from the driver of the vehicle and consequently even if there was sudden failure of light the driver had enough time to immobilize the vehicle by applying brakes immediately.
22. The aforesaid observations made by one of us (Bhawani Singh, J.) would be very much relevant while appreciating the evidence in the present case also.
23. In the aforesaid context, the evidence examined before the Tribunal has to be appreciated in order to come to a definite conclusion pertaining to the rash and negligent driving attributed to the driver being the sole cause of the accident.
24. Admittedly, the driver of the ill-fated bus passed away in the said accident. It is not a case of collision. The best evidence to prove the factors responsible for the accident could be the driver himself but he is no more there, as referred to above. In such circumstances apart from the evidence examined, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur shall have its applicability. The road at the place of accident, admittedly, was quite wide as it happened to be a National Highway where two buses could easily cross each other. The plea of the Corporation that the accident was due to sudden failure of lights and due to foggy weather if not established, by the applicability of the aforesaid doctrine the presumption would be that negligence on the part of the driver was the sole cause of the accident.
25. The claimants examined some witnesses to discharge the onus of issue pertaining to negligence. PW Ramesh Chand deposed on oath that though it was rainy season but it was clear on the date of occurrence. PW Vinod Mahajan who was injured in the said accident was also examined on oath who deposed that Kalka-Shimla road was more than 24 feet wide. He has been very specific by deposing that there was no fog at the time of accident. He further disclosed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the bus went down near the railway crossing between Jabli and Dharampur. He further added that it was rainy season but the suggestion that the weather was foggy has been denied by the witness. He also denied the suggestion that the lights of the bus went off suddenly. Another occupant of the bus was examined before the Tribunal who was Durga Singh. He stated on oath that the driver of the said bus from Dharamshala to Kiratpur was Katoch. The bus, thereafter, was taken over by another driver who brought it upto the site of the accident. This witness also disclosed that this driver had journeyed upto Kiratpur as a passenger by sitting on the bonnet of the bus and he had been talking with Katoch throughout the journey. The witness was specific in deposing that the driver had not taken any rest during the night and was awake. According to this witness, he was awake at the time of the accident and as the bus went towards the right and started going towards the khud he saw that the driver had dozed off.
26. The Corporation examined Hukam Chand, who drove the ill-fated bus on 25th July, 1980, from Dharamshala to Ropar. He stated that he handed over the vehicle to Ramesh Kumar, the second driver. He also added that Des Raj was the conductor who accompanied the bus upto Shimla. He stated that no other driver accompanied him from Dharamshala to Ropar. He denied the suggestion that Ramesh Kumar driver had accompanied him from Dharamshala to Kiratpur. He, however, stated that the bus was in perfect order.
27. Des Raj has also been examined who happened to be the conductor of the ill-fated bus. He stated on oath that on 25th July, 1980, he was deputed as conductor with the said bus which was coming from Dharamshala to Shimla. According to him, the bus left Dharamshala at about 7.00 p.m. which was being plied by Hukam Chand driver. At Ropar, according to this witness, Ramesh Kumar, deceased driver, took over the charge of the vehicle. He further added that the moment they reached near the place of occurrence, they found that it was foggy and it was drizzling. It was near Sanwara that the headlights of the vehicle failed. He could not assign any reason for the failure of the lights. This witness was occupying seat No. 1. He disclosed that thereafter the bus rolled down into the khud and he did not know what happened thereafter. He also sustained injuries. He further added that the accident took place at about 5.02 or 5.0.4 a.m. He was specific in saying that the day had dawned but it was foggy. He denied the suggestion that the driver came from Kangra along with Hukam Chand driver upto Kiratpur. He stated that the bus was going up-hill. He admitted that the width of the road at the place of accident was about 40 feet. He again disclosed that the bus fell about 25 yards ahead of the curve. He also denied the suggestion that he was sleeping at the relevant time and the driver had suddenly dozed off at the time of accident.
28. There is no evidence examined on behalf of the Corporation pertaining to the mechanical inspection, if any, conducted of that bus after the accident which could speak in itself regarding the condition of the bus prior to and after the accident and more specifically pertaining to the sudden failure of the electric light system of the bus. Absolutely no attempt has been made in this behalf on behalf of the Corporation especially when the burden lay heavily upon it to establish and prove the facts alleged by it which were attributed to be the cause of accident. This conduct of the Corporation has to be appreciated accordingly.
29. The aforesaid evidence was examined by the parties in one set of cases which were tried by one Presiding Officer. The other set of evidence examined by the other Presiding Officer is being dealt with hereafter.
30. The accident has not been denied by the Corporation. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was straightway applicable inasmuch as the bus, admittedly, left the road. While discussing the matter the Tribunal observed that even if it was a foggy weather in that event the degree of caution required to be taken was much more on the driver of the bus but he did not apply that much care and caution but threw the bus right into the khud. It was held that even if the headlights of the vehicle went off all of a sudden and in case the vehicle was at normal speed the same could have been controlled through number of means by applying brakes or to stop the vehicle, steering could also be used to turn the vehicle towards a safer position and even the engine could be got disconnected even by the application of the clutch, more so, when the vehicle was coming uphill. The versions given by respondent's witnesses have also been referred by the Tribunal and it has been observed that the headlights of the bus even if went off suddenly the bus could be stopped there and then. According to the Tribunal, as the driver could not stop the bus even if the weather was foggy and the lights have suddenly went off, the only inference was that the bus was being driven in fast speed and that the driver was rash and negligent at the particular moment.
31. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence it has been contended on behalf of the Corporation by its learned counsel, Mr. Khanna, that the weather was foggy and the lights of the vehicle went off suddenly which made the things worst and at the spur of moment, due to no fault of the driver, the bus went down the road. We think that such inferences, ordinarily and in the natural sequence of the things, are not available on the basis of the facts proved in the case.
32. There is some evidence that the deceased driver had accompanied the bus from Dharamshala but even if it is not accepted it has to be proved by none else but by the Corporation through legal and competent evidence that the deceased driver while taking over the bus at night at Ropar had taken full rest so as to keep him fit for the night journey which he had to commence at the midnight at about 2.00 a.m. from Ropar. There is no such evidence brought on record which could speak about the efficiency of the driver in those particular circumstances.
33. As already pointed out, the Corporation has failed to bring on record the evidence pertaining to the mechanical inspection of the ill-fated bus which could prove or could give some idea about the condition of the bus after the accident or just prior to the accident, including the electricity system of the bus. The absence of such an evidence could definitely be taken adversely to the case of the Corporation in this particular regard.
34. The foggy weather and the sudden failure of lights have been disputed by the claimants. The evidence has come on record that the weather was not foggy. If it was so, the negligence on the part of the driver was writ large. Even if for arguments sake the weather was foggy, in such circumstances it required more care to have been taken while plying the bus which aspect appears to be missing in the present case. It has come in the statement of the conductor that the accident took place about 25 yards ahead when the lights went off. Even if this statement is accepted to be true, again the negligence on the part of the driver is clearly established. The driver knew that one side of the road was hilly and the other side was not. He was also supposed to know what was in front of him. The Corporation's case that it was dark at that time cannot be accepted. A judicial notice can be taken that in the third week of June it is the longest day in this part of the country and the nights are shortest. After a lapse of one month, that is, in the last week of July when the accident took place, it cannot be said that at that particular moment it was quite dark but, on the other hand, as stated by the conductor, the day had just dawned and with this background the story of darkness does not appeal to reasoning. In such circumstances a vigilant driver, if faced with this eventuality, was to stop the vehicle there and then or would have turned it towards the hill side making it surer that the bus did not go out of the road on the other side. The driver had sufficient time to do so as, according to the conductor, the accident took place about 25 yards ahead when the lights went off all of a sudden. In this view of the matter also, rash and negligent driving being the sole cause of accident could easily be inferred.
35. The Claims Tribunals, as such, have rightly held the cause of accident to be the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the Corporation. The plea of the Corporation that the accident was the result of vis major cannot be accepted and has been rightly rejected by the Tribunals. The findings of negligence, as such, do not require interference by us as there is no occasion to do so.
Point No. 236. The parties have no dispute to the proposition that after coming to a definite conclusion as to what was the annual dependency of the claimants, the total dependency can easily be worked out by multiplying the annual dependency through some multiplier, to be determined in a particular case. There are no hard and fast rules as to what multiplier is to be made applicable in a particular case but definitely there are certain circumstances which can be taken care of while applying a suitable multiplier.
37. There is again no dispute to the proposition that the age of the deceased and that of the dependants and the life expectancy in the family are a few grounds to be taken into consideration in this particular behalf. Apart from this, certain special circumstances appearing in a particular case have to be taken care of additionally. For example, the deceased was the sole bread-earner of the family and the dependants happened to be the widow, female children, handicapped dependants and so on. The deceased was a Government servant or was having his own business and what was the income he was having from those sources also have to be taken into consideration. In case where the deceased was in private business and the business was of such a nature which was flourishing by the passage of time, this fact also cannot be ignored while applying the multiplier. The deceased in case was a Government servant, the factum that the salary he was drawing would always have some annual increase, and in the event of his retirement the liberalised Pension Rules entitling him to pensionary benefits have also to be taken into consideration. More so, in view of the present circumstances, as prevailing in the Government, there has always been revision of pay scales after some interval. The dependency of the minor children for education, for marriage, etc., have also to be taken note of while applying the multiplier. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in this particular behalf but definitely some guidelines can be taken note of in various cased decided by various courts of law touching this aspect of the matter.
38. Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam 1987 ACJ 172 (SC), can safely be taken into consideration. In this case the deceased was 45 years of age and the average span of life was taken as 70 year's. 25 was the multiplier applied but considering the fact that the compensation was being paid at a time and uncertainties of life were relevant factors, the compensation was reduced by 1/5th meaning thereby that the multiplier of 20 was applied in that case. However, while selecting the multiplier this fact should always be kept in mind that the compensation is being paid at one time.
39. Urmila Devi v. Baljit Singh 1990 ACJ 229 (P&H), is another case wherein, at page 230, it has been held that in the present case, as already noticed earlier, the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of his death, his widow was aged about 33 years and other dependants were minors. The father of the deceased was 80 years of age and taking into consideration all these aforesaid facts 20 was considered a suitable multiplier in the case.
40. Similarly, in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Puni Devi 1993 ACJ 998 (HP), it was observed that the choice of multiplier is to be made by the court using its own experience and having due regard to the peculiar facts of each case, because the ultimate goal is not to adhere to any rigid formula, but to award a compensation which is just and in this approach the courts have to remain sympathetic and realistic in their considerations because every assessment of compensation of this type rests more or less on conjectures of a fallible human being who is not able to know the ways of providence. Under the circumstances, what was required to be assessed was only a reasonable probability as it appealed to a reasonable person.
41. The ratio of the ruling in Prerna v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation 1993 ACJ 254 (SC), can also be availed of while appreciating the evidence in the present cases. In this case the age of the deceased was 26 years and that of his father was 70 years and the longevity in the family was, as such, assumed. The Tribunal in that case did not give any allowance for the future increments and promotional chances of the deceased which factor has to be taken note of. In this case it was found just and proper to allow multiplier of 24. The Tribunal had also not given any compensation for the loss of consortium.
42. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kavita Rani 1993 ACJ 489 (HP), the deceased was a retired Major General in the Army and was of the age of 58 years. The Tribunal in that case adopted a multiplier of 12 after taking into consideration all the factors which was upheld by the High Court.
43. In the present cases it has been contended on behalf of the Corporation that while adopting any particular multiplier in case of a Government servant his retirement age of 58 years must be kept in mind. There is no doubt that such a factor has always to be kept in mind but other factors as referred to above cannot be ignored also.
44. The Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 1992 ACJ 300 (SC), adopted a multiplier of 24 in the case of deceased aged 36 years who was a Major in the Army and the dependants were widow and the three minor children. In this case the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 20 and made deduction of one-third for lump sum payment and the High Court upheld the award. But the Apex Court assessed the dependency by adopting a multiplier of 24, disallowing the deduction and as a consequence thereof enhanced the award.
45. The aforesaid case-law definitely shall be a guiding factor for adopting a particular multiplier in particular circumstances existing in a case.
Point No. 346. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that where any Claims Tribunal allows the claim for compensation under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that, in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date, not earlier than the date of making the claim, as it may specify in this behalf.
47. On the basis of the aforesaid provision, interest has to be awarded to the claimants on the compensation amount awarded in their favour. The sole dispute between the parties in the present cases has been that, according to the learned counsel for the Corporation, 6 per cent per annum interest from the date of the award was proper but, on the other hand, on behalf of the claimants' side it has been stressed that interest must be awarded from the date when the claim petitions were submitted before the Tribunal and the rate should be not less than 12 per cent per annum.
48. There are numerous authorities in this particular behalf which include the cases decided by our own High Court wherein 12 per cent per annum interest has been awarded from the date of the making of the claim petition(s).
49. In Bimla Dubey v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 1992 ACJ 166 (HP), our own High Court held that the proper rate of interest was 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the application till the realisation of the amount and it was observed that in the present context this appears to be the correct rate of interest.
50. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Puni Devi 1993 ACJ 998 (HP), which was a case decided by a Division Bench of our own High Court, it was held that the grant of interest was not dependent on any pleadings and can even be orally asked if the contingency therefor arose and in this case if was observed that the respondents were entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application and that the interest could be awarded and/of rate of interest could be enhanced even without asking for it specifically in the claim petition as well as by preferring cross-objection.
51. Thus, in all the cases which are the subject-matter of the present judgment, the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the making of the claim petitions till the amount was fully realised.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 177 of 1983 F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 194 of 1983
52. The Claims Tribunal accepted the claim petition preferred by Krishna Kapoor and others for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Krishna Kapoor's husband, Pramod Kapoor, in the alleged accident. Pramod Kapoor at the relevant time was 40 years of age and was working as a Junior Engineer in H.P. P.W.D. The Tribunal after hearing the parties made an award of Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of the claimants who happened to be the widow and the minor daughters of the deceased after fixing the monthly dependency to be Rs. 900/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 and also awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of recovery.
53. The aforesaid award of the Tribunal has been assailed by the claimants as well as by the Corporation in the two aforesaid different appeals. According to the Corporation, the amount has been awarded in excess and that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the amount received by the claimants under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme and ex gratia grant. However, on the other hand, the claimants have assailed the award on the ground that the multiplier was not correctly applied by the Tribunal which ought to be 20 in the present case and that the monthly dependency of the claimants has been proved to be Rs. 1,000/-. They also claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
54. The claimants in support of their case pertaining to the amount of award examined Krishna Kapoor, the widow of the deceased, who was about 34 years of age at the time of the accident. She deposed on oath that the deceased at the time of the accident was 40 years of age and the other claimants were their minor daughters aged 16 and 12 years respectively. She stated that her father-in-law died at the age of 75 years and her mother-in-law at that time was of 65 years. She added that her husband was getting Rs. 1,080/- per month as his pay and he used to keep Rs. 100/- for his own expenses and used to pay Rs. 900/- to her, to be spent on the entire family.
55. PW 2 was one Ravi Chand, Registrar, H.P. P.W.D., who stated that the scales of Overseers were revised on 1st January, 1978, which was Rs. 700-1,200/-. According to this witness, the selection grade granted for this post was Rs. 800-1,400/-. This witness disclosed that in the seniority list the deceased was at No. 288. He also disclosed that in case the deceased continued with his service he would have definitely become S.D.O. by the time of his superannuation and at that time his monthly pay would have been Rs. 2,400/-. It was also stated that the deceased had already put in 18 years and six months service. The witness also added that the deceased joined service on 19th January, 1962, as a diploma holder for whom 45 per cent quota was reserved for promotion.
56. There is practically no rebuttal adduced on behalf of the Corporation to the aforesaid evidence.
57. It has come in evidence that the deceased at the time of accident was having Rs. 1,080/- per month as his salary. It has also come in evidence that he was spending for himself Rs. 100/-. However, one of the claimants deposed on oath that the deceased was contributing Rs. 900/- per month for his family, meaning thereby that Rs. 900/-per month could be dependency of the claimants.
58. The Tribunal has selected 13 to be the multiplier without assigning any reason for the same. This multiplier, on the basis of the circumstances present in this case, appeared to be quite less.
59. In our society male member is always the nucleus of the family and when that nucleus vanishes perpetually leaving behind only widow and the minor daughters with no male member to look after the family, in such circumstances the entire family is disturbed in all respects, more so, economically especially when the deceased male happened to be the sole bread-earner of the family. In this case apart from the deceased there was no male member in the family to support them.
60. Apart from this, it has already been discussed that in case of a Government servant the salary always increases annually and in the present-day circumstances the dearness allowance is paid after every six months on the increase of price index. Moreover, it has come in evidence that the deceased was paid Rs. 1,080/- per month as his salary on the basis of the revised scale which came into force on 1st January, 1978. Needless to say, the scales have already been revised in the year 1986 and there was every likelihood of another revision of pay scales before retirement of the deceased and also for all categories of Government employees in Himachal Pradesh before the year 1988, the superannuation year of the deceased.
61. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factors and the law referred in this behalf as above, we think multiplier of 20 can definitely be applied in the present case. That being so, the annual dependency of the claimants would be Rs. 10,800/- and after multiplying this amount with the multiplier of 20, the total dependency comes to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The conventional amount of Rs. 3,000/- for the loss of life is to be added to the aforesaid amount. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,19,000/- as compensation.
62. It has been contended on behalf of the Corporation that the interim relief granted to the claimant as ex gratia grant and the amount paid under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme by the State Government have to be deducted from the entire amount of compensation. The aforesaid argument cannot be considered favourably inasmuch as it has been held in Bimla Dubey v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 1992 ACJ 166 (HP), that in case it was ex gratia payment, it may not be deducted and if not, it may be. It was further held that the benefit in the event of such a doubt should go to the claimants. In the present case, as per the record, only ex gratia under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme was paid on account of death of the deceased, Pramod Kapoor. This amount, as such, cannot be deducted. There is no other evidence on record to suggest that any interim relief was ever paid to the claimants and, as such, in the present case no other amount is to be deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants.
63. The claimants, as has already been discussed, shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realisation.
64. The Corporation which happened to be a State undertaking has contested the claim petition at every stage of the proceedings and also preferred an appeal. With this background, we think the Corporation must be burdened with costs of the entire proceedings throughout.
65. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal of the claimants is accepted with costs throughout and the award stands modified as pointed out above while the appeal on behalf of the Corporation stands dismissed with costs.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 178 of 1983 F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 193 of 1983
66. One Karam Chand Uppal, Advocate, Dehra, was also one of the occupants of the bus who expired in the accident. His legal representatives, the wife, children and the parents preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal and after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence adduced in this behalf the Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 1,000/-and after adopting the multiplier of 10 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in their favour. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the recovery.
67. The claimants assailed the aforesaid award in the present appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 1,000/- while it should have been more than that. According to the claimants, the multiplier of 18 was to be adopted in the circumstances of the case. They also asked for enhanced rate of interest.
68. On the other hand, the Corporation also assailed the aforesaid award on the ground that the compensation in view of the evidence on record was granted in excess and that the amount paid to the claimants as interim relief and under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme has to be deducted.
69. It has come in evidence examined on behalf of the claimants that the deceased, Karam Chand Uppal, at the time of his death was about 45 years of age. It has also come in evidence that he was enjoying good health. The three children of the deceased were aged from 15 years to 20 years, as stated by Pushpa Uppal. The father of the deceased, Moti Ram, was examined as PW 2. His statement is very much relevant in order to prove the fact of longevity in the family. At the time of his examination he was 87 years of age and his wife at that time was 83 years of age. He disclosed that he had two other brothers and his eldest brother was alive who was 97 years of age. His second brother died at the age of 87 years while his grandfather died at the age of 103 years.
70. Regarding income of the deceased, PW 1, Mr. Suram Singh, Advocate, deposed that the deceased at the time of his death was practising as an advocate at Dehra and he had an experience of 11 years to that effect. According to this witness, the deceased was earning about Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. Similarly, Pushpa Uppal deposed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,600/- per month. After the death of Mr. Uppal, PW 4, Hitesh Uppal, who was in some private service, after leaving that service started practising as a lawyer at Dehra and inherited the briefs of Mr. Uppal. He stated that there were more than 200 cases with the deceased and this witness, on the basis of those cases, started earning more than Rs. 1,000/- per month.
71. It has come in the statement of the father of the deceased and his wife that the deceased used to contribute Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- to his parents and was also meeting the expenditure of the study of his two children who were studying outside and this amount was about Rs. 800/- to Rs. 900/-.
72. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 1,000/-. We think this amount appears not only to be just but reasonable also. While arriving at this amount the Tribunal observed that in the absence of specific evidence the monthly income of the deceased can safely be fixed at Rs. 1,200/- per month and out of this the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs. 800/- towards his children and approximately Rs. 200/- to the parents. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the contribution to the children after they had completed their education could not be the amount referred to above. Taking into consideration all these aspects the monthly dependency, we think, was correctly assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 1,000/-.
73. It has come in evidence that the deceased was initially working as a teacher and he left that job and thereafter joined the Bar. He was having quite good health and his practice in the Sub-Divisional Headquarters of Dehra was quite good. Needless to say, a lawyer, till his health permits, does not retire. Moreover, in the present-day circumstances when litigation is always on the increase the profession of an advocate is always on the flourishing side. Taking into consideration all these factors coupled with the longevity of life in the entire family the multiplier of 10 adopted by the Tribunal does not appeal to reason at all. In such circumstances multiplier of 18 shall be most reasonable and that being so, the total dependency of the claimants would be Rs. 2,16,000/-. Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount for the loss of life is to be added to the aforesaid amount. The claimants, as such, are legally entitled to Rs. 2,19,000/-from the respondent Corporation.
74. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the realisation of the entire amount.
75. It has come in evidence vide Exh. RW 1/G that an interim relief of Rs. 1,000 was paid to the claimants which amount has to be deducted from the aforesaid awarded amount.
76. The appeal preferred by claimants, as such, is accepted, after the award has been modified, as referred to above, with costs throughout. However, on the other hand, the appeal preferred by the Corporation stands dismissed with costs.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 179 of 1983 F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 195 of 1983
77. One Tara Chand also breathed his last as a result of the said accident. His wife, minor daughter and parents preferred a claim petition which was contested by the Corporation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and going through the evidence awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/-along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the recovery.
78. The claimants have assailed the aforesaid award in the present appeal on the grounds that the monthly dependency of the claimants proved on record was Rs. 1,000/- and the Tribunal, as such, erred in this behalf in assessing the same to be Rs. 800/-. The appellants also pleaded that on the facts and circumstances of the case the multiplier to be adopted in the case would be 22 instead of 12.
79. In the cross-appeal preferred by the Corporation it has been pleaded that the compensation has been awarded excessively in favour of the claimants and that the Claims Tribunal erred in not deducting the ex gratia grant paid in favour of the claimants along with the amount under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme.
80. The claimants examined only oral evidence to prove the annual dependency. Ram Piari appeared as PW 5 and deposed on oath that her husband, Tara Chand, at the time of accident was 28 years of age and her age was 26 years. She also disclosed that the deceased was a P.W.D. Contractor and was earning Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,200/-. She also stated that he was possessing a tractor and he used to spend about Rs. 1,000/- on the claimants. According to her, the deceased used to incur personal expenses to the extent of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/-. The female child was of seven years of age.
81. PW 6 was the father of the deceased who stated that the deceased was his son who had left behind his parents, wife and the minor child. He disclosed his age to be 60 years and that of the mother of the deceased to be 58 years. He also stated that his father died at the age of 85 years and his mother died at the age of 80 years. He also added that the deceased was a registered P.W.D. Contractor and he had kept a tractor and used to supply concrete.
82. The aforesaid evidence has not at all been rebutted. The deceased was doing private job and was working as a P.W.D. Contractor, as disclosed by the aforesaid witnesses, which fact has to be accepted. The wife who appears to be a truthful witness has stated that the deceased used to contribute Rs. 1,000/- for the claimants. She could have exaggerated this amount also but she did not select to follow that step. Moreover, this aspect of the matter has not been cross-examined on behalf of the Corporation. Only one question was put up in cross-examination to this lady whereby she replied that her husband was an income tax assessee but she could not tell how much income tax he was paying.
83. The Claims Tribunal has fixed the contribution towards the family at Rs. 800/-per month but has not assigned any reason to arrive at that amount. Widow of the deceased hails from rural area of Himachal and that aspect should not be lost sight of while appreciating her statement. Such a lady with that background who is basically honest and truthful, which quality is reflected from her statement when she, in very clear terms, deposed that the contribution towards the claimants of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/-, should be believed. That being so, the monthly dependency of the claimants, in these circumstances, can safely be fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.
84. The deceased was 28 years of age when he died. The widow of the deceased was 26 years of age and the minor child was seven years of age. The father and mother of the deceased were living and were 60 years and 58 years of age in the year 1982 when the father was examined.
85. The Tribunal, without assigning any reason, adopted a multiplier of 12. The deceased was very young and so was the widow. Apart from that, there was longevity of life in the family. All these aspects appear to have escaped the notice of the Tribunal while adopting a multiplier. In a case of the present nature, as per law discussed above, a multiplier of 22 can safely be adopted which would be most reasonable and just.
86. The annual dependency would, thus, be Rs. 12,000/- and the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,64,000/-. Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount for the loss of life is to be added to the aforesaid amount. The claimants are, thus, entitled to Rs. 2,67,000/- as compensation from the respondent Corporation.
87. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the realisation of the entire amount.
88. There is no evidence on record to prove that any interim relief was paid to the claimants, hence no deductions.
89. The appeal preferred by the claimants, as such, is accepted, after the award has been modified, as referred to above, with costs throughout. However, on the other hand, the appeal preferred by the Corporation stands dismissed with costs.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 183 of 1983
90. Ramesh Chander, claimant, along with his wife and a minor daughter, named Poonam, was travelling in that ill-fated bus. He himself sustained grievous injuries resulting in causing permanent disability to him. The daughter and the wife, Sheetal, lost their lives in the said accident. Ramesh Chander put in claim petition praying for grant of compensation for the death of his minor daughter, aged about 2 years at the relevant time. This petition was contested on behalf of the Corporation and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of award till the payment of the aforesaid compensation. The counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 300/-.
91. The aforesaid award has been assailed in the present appeal by the Corporation on the sole ground that the award was an excessive one.
92. It is really very strange to note how this amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the excessive side especially when there is nothing on record to suggest as to what would have been the just compensation in a case of present nature.
93. A child does not earn at all and the deceased was still in her infancy but it did not mean that his father would be debarred from receiving compensation as the child was not earning anything. No solid argument could be advanced on behalf of the Corporation for the reduction of the aforesaid amount. We think the Tribunal has acted in a reasonable manner in assessing the compensation at Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of life of the minor child of the claimant. We do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said award. However, it may be specified here that apart from the aforesaid award of Rs. 10,000/- made in favour of the claimant we allow interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till the realisation of the said amount. The present appeal, as such, is dismissed with costs.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 184 of 1983
94. In this case Ramesh Chander, the claimant, filed a petition asking for compensation on account of the death of his wife, Sheetal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 52,800/- in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the payment was made. The claimant was also allowed the costs assessed at Rs. 300/-.
95. The Corporation had contested the claim petition before the Tribunal also and has preferred the present appeal assailing the aforesaid award of the Tribunal on various grounds, the main being that the award was excessive and that the amount paid as interim relief and as ex gratia grant on account of Passengers' Insurance Scheme was to be deducted.
96. The age of the deceased at the time of occurrence was 22 years. Her husband, Ramesh Chander, at the time of accident was 28 years of age. There is evidence on record establishing the longevity of life in the family.
97. The deceased was a housewife. It has been contended on behalf of the Corporation that the contribution of the deceased to the family, more so, towards the claimant has not been specifically proved in terms of money and on that score the compensation granted in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal was on excessive side. This line of argument does not appeal to reasoning at all.
98. Needless to say, it is the just and the reasonable compensation which has to be awarded in favour of the claimant. That does not mean that there was no dependency of the claimant upon the deceased. The household work usually was managed by the deceased. The dependency in the absence of specific and direct evidence has to be gathered from the circumstances existing in a particular case. A housewife in an Indian family contributes in such a manner which contribution in a way cannot be compensated at all. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the contribution of the dependency at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. It is such an amount which cannot be said to be excessive on any score.
99. Keeping in consideration the age of the claimant and the deceased and the longevity in the family the Tribunal correctly adopted the multiplier of 22 in the present case. The award made by the Tribunal in this particular regard does not require any interference whatsoever.
100. There is evidence on record that Rs. 20,000/- under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme was received by the claimant, Ramesh Chander, in relation to the death of his wife in the said accident. No other interim relief has been proved on record to have been paid in favour of the claimant.
101. The present appeal by the Corporation, as such, is dismissed with costs throughout.
102. The claimant is, however, entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the realisation of the entire amount.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 185 of 1983 Cross-objection No. 41 of 1984
103. Ramesh Chander, the present respondent, lost his wife and the sole minor daughter in this accident and suffered some grievous injuries causing 100 per cent disability to the lower part of his body. He preferred a petition for claim with respect to the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal accepted his claim petition and awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- compensation in his favour along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. He was also held entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 500/-.
104. The Corporation has assailed the present award through the present appeal on the sole ground that the compensation awarded was excessive and had been calculated on the basis of conjecture and surmises. Apart from that, it has also been pleaded that the Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the amount received by the claimant under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme and as ex gratia grant from the appellant.
105. Claimant Ramesh Chander also put in his cross-objections on the ground that the Tribunal has not correctly applied well-established principles while determining the amount of compensation payable to him. It was further pleaded that the Tribunal did not take into consideration an important aspect that the claimant suffered serious injuries on account of which he could not remarry as there were no chances of having any other child in his life because of the medical defect appealing in his body after the accident. The claimant, as such, prayed for the enhancement of compensation awarded in his favour by Rs. 2,00,000/- more with interest from the date of filing of the petition till the amount was paid.
106. In case of injuries caused to the claimant two types of damages can be awarded in favour of the injured. The first being pecuniary, that is, the special damages and the second being non-pecuniary, that is, the general damages. The pecuniary damages are generally awarded in order to make good the pecuniary loss to which the claimant might have been put on account of the accident and such damages are capable of being computed and assessed at the trial. These are:
(a) Reduction in the earning capacity immediately after the accident or in futureand reduction in his capability in doing physical work; any loss of salary or other earnings due to the termination of service or its discontinuance or any loss in trade, business or profession on that count.
(b) Any other material loss, such as, for special treatment or aid required by the injured or the claimant for the rest of his life.
107. Non-pecuniary loss also includes a number of elements as under:
(1) Damages for mental shock and physical pain and suffering, already or likely to be suffered in future;
(2) For loss of amenities of life, such as, incapability of the claimant to work, run, sit or diminution of marriage prospects and consortium and such other amenities;
(3) Diminution in the expectancy of life due to injuries caused;
(4) Inconvenience, hardship, frustration and mental constraints consequent upon the injuries caused by the accident.
108. The evidence examined during the trial has to be taken into consideration to assess the damages for which the claimant was entitled to. As has been pointed out earlier, the damages, especially the non-pecuniary one and even the pecuniary one, cannot be ascertained with mathematical precision. It is only the just and the reasonable amount which has to be kept in mind under the given circumstances for which the claimant could be legally entitled to.
109. The claimant examined oral as well as the documentary evidence in support of his claim. He appeared as PW 2 and deposed on oath that he was carrying on the business of goldsmith at Amritsar and his monthly income varied between Rs. 1,200/- and Rs. 2,000/-. His age at the time of his examination, which took place on 10th August, 1982, was 28 years. According to him, he suffered backbone injury due to the breakdown of the spinal cord resulting in paralysis of his legs. He also stated that he was removed to Solan District Hospital and after being given treatment for one day there he was referred to the P.G.I, where he remained for four days and the authorities at the P.G.I, had referred him to Rohtak Medical College for further treatment where, according to him, he was admitted for a continuous period of three months. He also disclosed that thereafter he left for Amritsar but the backbone trouble relapsed due to which he got himself admitted in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, for a period of 15 days and thereafter he remained under treatment of private practitioner who owned a nursing home. He has been very specific in deposing that he could not carry on his business throughout the aforesaid period. He disclosed that he was still under treatment. The court observed that the witness was brought to the court room in a wheelchair and he was unable to stand or move about and, accordingly, was allowed to depose before the court while sitting on the said chair.
110. The claimant also disclosed that he had spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment. He stated that he was an income-tax payer and his business had come to a standstill. He produced Exh. PW-2/142 to Exh. PW-2/144 and Exh. PW-2/150, original treatment record of the P.G.I., Chandigarh. He has been very specific in disclosing that he was having difficulty in passing urine and for that purpose catheter was being used. He also added that he had employed a person at a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- for taking care of him and to take him from one place to another on the wheelchair. He also stated that as per medical opinion he had become incapacitated to remarry or to produce children. He stated that he had no other child. He has given the age of his father as 70 or 75 years. He has brought on record certain cash memos, Exh. PW-2/1 to Exh. PW-2/125 and test reports, Exh. PW-2/126 to Exh. PW-2/141. He has also produced medico-legal certificate, Exh. PW-2/145 and the skiagrams, Exh. PW-2/146 (A) & (B) and Exh. PW-2/147 (11 in number). He also stated that except paralysis below his abdomen his upper portion was alright.
111. PW 5 is Dr. R.S. Pannu, who was Registrar, Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Amritsar. This witness also treated the claimant, Exh. PW-5/A is the certificate issued by Dr. Krishan Lal in favour of the claimant proved by this witness who had identified the signatures of the said doctor as he has worked with him. Another certificate, Exh. PW-5/B, was issued by Dr. Hardas Singh which, in the same manner, has been proved by this witness. The witness stated that traumatic paraplegia (injury of spine), with which the petitioner Ramesh Chander was suffering, caused paralysis of lower limbs and that the petitioner Ramesh Chander was not able to produce children due to this injury. Exh. PW-5/B, the other certificate, described the injuries suffered by the claimant and it has been mentioned that the disability was 100 per cent and was permanent.
112. PW 6 is one Shyam Lal, Upper Division Clerk, Income-tax Department, Amritsar, who had deposed that Ramesh Chander was an income-tax assessee since 1976-77 and in the assessment year 1980-81, as per the return filed by Ramesh Chander, his gross income was Rs. 14,100/- and taxable income was Rs. 10,100/-.
113. PW 7 is Girdhari Lal, the father of the injured, who has also supported the case of the injured by deposing that the injured was the sole bread-earner of the family as his younger son was 14/15 years of age who was studying in school. According to him, he has employed two servants to look after the injured.
114. The aforesaid evidence adduced by the claimant in a way has not been rebutted.
115. The Tribunal, after discussing the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that on the basis of the documents it stood established that the claimant must have spent an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on purchase of medicines and some extra amount for taking special diet during the treatment period. The Tribunal, as such, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the minimum towards the medical expenses alone. It was also observed that in case Rs. 2,50,000/- were assessed as the compensation in favour of the claimant it would meet the ends of justice as, according to the Tribunal, out of this amount, in case Rs. 2,00,000/- were kept in fixed deposit that would yield monthly income of Rs. l,500/- to Rs. 2.000/-.
116. There is no doubt that the Tribunal, after allowing the medical expenses, has come to a conclusion that, without touching the evidence part, the claimant was entitled to Rs. 2,50,000/- but the fact remains that on the basis of the aforesaid evidence just and reasonable damages for pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary aspects can definitely be assessed.
117. For pecuniary damages we have no occasion to differ with the Tribunal that on the face of injuries of the present nature and the medical treatment the claimant received, Rs. 50,000/- can definitely be assessed to be just in this particular regard. There is no doubt that, as observed by the Tribunal, the documents established that more than Rs. 30,000/- had been spent on the purchase of medicines but the other expenditure could, under the circumstances, be assessed taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatment given to him. Thus, the claimant was entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses.
118. Another important factor has come in the statement of the claimant himself who stated that for getting treatment he had to remain admitted in the hospital and in a way was not in a position to do his professional work even when discharged from the hospital. It is correct that no specific period, apart from the period the claimant remained in the hospital, has been clearly referred to for which period the claimant could not do his professional work. However, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case it can safely be said that for about six months the claimant did not do his professional work and the loss suffered by him can be easily attributed to the said accident. The gross income of the claimant, as deposed by the Income-tax Department official, was Rs. 14,100/-. That means that the actual loss in this particular behalf the claimant suffered was Rs. 7,000/-.
119. It has also come in evidence that the claimant has to move in a wheelchair throughout his life and for that purpose the services of a private person were required by him perpetually. These services are also required for looking after him. The claimant himself stated that he had engaged a person at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. That means in a year Rs. 3,000/- would be spent on this person. The claimant was 28 years of age and taking into consideration the expectancy of the life in the family, the multiplier of 20 in this behalf can easily be adopted. Thus, for the engagement of a private person the claimant is to be granted Rs. 60,000/-.
120. The claimant was working as a goldsmith and was doing the work with his own hands. There is no doubt that his professional work required the efficiency of the hands and not of the legs which had been paralysed but the fact remains that in such a physical condition the efficiency of the hands would be adversely affected which would in a way adversely affect the total earnings of the claimant. In this behalf if the loss of future earnings, minimum at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per year is taken into consideration, for a multiplier of 20 it would be Rs. 50,000/-.
121. Thus, the pecuniary damages in favour of the claimant can be assessed as under:
Rupees
(a) Medical expenses 50,000/-
(b) Loss of earnings for six
months 7,000/-
(c) Amount for engaging a
private person as a servant 60,000/-
(d) Loss of future earnings 50,000/-
Total 1,67,000/-
122. Taking into consideration the non-pecuniary damages, various aspects reflected in the evidence examined can be taken into consideration. The claimant lost his wife and the only minor child in the accident. The claimant has been rendered incapable to produce children. In this view of the matter his likelihood to remarry has been reduced to nil. He has to remain throughout his life with this injury and without a wife and without any issue. All this has happened because of the accident in question. The perpetual mental agony, the sufferings and pain in a way, under the circumstances, cannot be weighed in money but one has to arrive at a just and reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded in this particular behalf. The injury sustained by the claimant may also affect his life expectancy.
123. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts Rs. 1,50,000/-, if awarded in favour of the claimant under non-pecuniary damages, it may meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we award Rs. 1,50,000/- on this count.
124. Thus, the pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages in the present case stand assessed at Rs. 3,17,000/-. Thus, the claimant is awarded an amount of Rs. 3,17,000/-along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.
125. The appeal preferred by the Corporation is dismissed with costs while the cross-objections preferred by the claimant are allowed to the aforesaid extent with costs.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 187 of 1983 Cross-objection No. 35 of 1984
126. Laxmi Prakash Punj, aged 32 years, son of Krishna Nand, PW 6, also sustained fatal injuries in the above accident. The deceased left behind his parents, his wife and four minor children who preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal which was contested by the Corporation. After full trial the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 810/-and after adopting the multiplier of 18 awarded Rs, 1,74,960/- as compensation. Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount for the loss of life was added to the aforesaid amount. The claimants were also held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment of the amount of compensation. The counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 300/-.
127. The Corporation has assailed the aforesaid award on various grounds, the main being that the Tribunal did not deduct the amount paid to the claimants as interim relief and under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme and that the compensation awarded was in excess.
128. The claimants also preferred cross-objections in the present appeal and pleaded that the age of the deceased was 32 years and on that score the multiplier of 20 was required to be adopted by the Tribunal. It was also pleaded that the contribution to the claimants was Rs. 12,000/- per year and that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was very less.
129. The father of the deceased, Krishna Nand Punj, examined himself on oath in support of the case of the claimants. The age of this witness at the time of examination, which took place on 20th December, 1982, was 61 years. He stated that the deceased was a registered medical practitioner and was also running a chemist shop at Dehra under a licence. The licences produced on record were Exhs. PW-6/A and PW-6/B. The witness stated that he did not know whether the deceased was paying income-tax or not but, according to him, the monthly income of the deceased from his medical profession and shop was Rs. 1,200/-. He also stated that the family of the deceased was given Rs. 20,000/- by the Government under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme. However, he denied the suggestion that the deceased used to spend Rs. 800 to Rs. 900 on himself alone. He also disclosed that after the death of the deceased it was found that he was to pay Rs. 20,000/-, including Rs. 10,000/- as loan from the bank, to the various suppliers of medicines. This witness stated that he cleared the debt out of the sale of the medicines from the shop and also from his own pocket.
130. There is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the aforesaid statement made on oath by the father of the deceased. He has very specifically stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,200/- per month. On this point no effective cross-examination has been conducted on behalf of the Corporation. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 900/- on the sole ground that the respondent's own suggestion to the witness has been that the income of the deceased was Rs. 900/- per month. We think such a suggestion was not put to the witness at all. The suggestion put was that the deceased used to spend about Rs. 800/- to Rs. 900/-qua himself on his own person and this suggestion was denied by the witness. With that background Rs. 1,200/- per month income deposed by the witness has to be taken as the correct one.
131. There is nothing in the evidence of the father of the deceased as to for what amount the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. In such a case one has to take shelter to the unit system whereby an adult consumes two units while a minor consumes one unit. In the present case there were three adult claimants and four minor claimants. One adult was the deceased himself. In all there were 12 units. The amount per unit comes to Rs. 100/- and on that basis the deceased was consuming Rs. 200/- and the remaining Rs. 1,000/- can safely be assessed as the monthly dependency of the claimants.
132. The father of the deceased, as referred earlier, was 61 years of age at the time of making the statement which reflected the longevity in the family. The deceased was 32 years of age at the time of his death. He has left behind old parents, young widow and minor children. Taking into consideration all these aspects a multiplier of 20, as suggested on behalf of the claimants, can safely be adopted in the present case.
133. Thus, the total dependency of the claimants would be Rs. 2,40,000/- plus Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount for the loss of life is to be added to the aforesaid amount. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,43,000/- to which the claimants are held legally entitled. Apart from this, the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount of compensation from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.
134. There is nothing on the record to prove that apart from the insurance amount any other relief had been paid to the claimants and, as such, no deduction is to be made from the aforesaid amount.
135. In view of the foregoing reasons the present appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed with costs while the cross-objections preferred by the claimants are accepted with costs and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent whereby claimants have been held entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,43,000/- along with interest and costs, as aforesaid.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 188 of 1983 F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 189 of 1983
136. A male child, named Tinku, aged 2 years, and his mother Nirmla, aged 22 years, also lost their lives in the aforesaid accident. The claimants were Surinder Kumar, the father of the deceased child and husband of the deceased lady, and another minor child of the deceased lady.
137. The claim petitions were contested on behalf of the Corporation.
138. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/-as compensation on account of the demise of the lady and Rs. 15,000/- on account of the demise of the minor child. The Tribunal also awarded fees of the counsel which was assessed in each petition to be Rs. 300/-. Apart from that, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till its payment was also awarded.
139. The aforesaid award has been assailed by the Corporation in the present appeals on the ground that the claimants have been awarded compensation in excess and that the amount paid under the Passengers' Insurance Scheme and by way of ex gratia grant has not been deducted.
140. We do not find any reason whatsoever as to how the award given by the Tribunal was in excess especially when nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the Corporation on the basis whereof the award could be reduced which award is for the death of the house-lady and of a minor child.
141. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the death of the minor child which amount appears to be correctly assessed taking into consideration the age of the child. It may be very specifically pointed out here that even on no fault basis this amount at that time was minimum to be awarded for the death of a passenger. In that view of the matter also, the appeal preferred by the Corporation cannot be sustained on any ground whatsoever.
142. In so far as the death of housewife was concerned, the Tribunal, without going into the question of dependency, has based the grant of compensation on the ground that in case the vehicle was insured the minimum amount which could be granted under the law was Rs. 50,000/-. Otherwise also, we have made a reference in one of the appeals referred to above as to how the dependency of an Indian housewife is to be compensated. To our mind the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not on the excessive side but appeal's to be just and reasonable under the circumstances when the claimants have not been able to bring on record some evidence in that behalf.
143. That being so, the aforesaid appeals, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed with costs. However, the claimants are awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petitions till the date of payment.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 191 of 1983 Cross-objection No. 36 of 1984
144. One M.L. Puri also lost his life in the above accident. He was also employed as a Junior Engineer in H.P. P.W.D., Dharamshala. He left behind his widow, three minor children and his mother. After his death a posthumous daughter was born on 20th March, 1981.
145. The claimants preferred a petition for compensation and the Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 682/- and after applying the multiplier of 20 awarded Rs. 1,63,680/- in favour of the claimants along with Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount for the loss of life. The Tribunal also awarded costs of Rs. 300/- and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the payment was made.
146. The aforesaid award has been assailed on usual grounds by the Corporation. On the other hand, the claimants also put in their cross-objections whereby they pleaded that the award be enhanced to Rs. 1,84,344/- and also prayed for the grant of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till payment.
147. In order to prove the claim one of the claimants, Indira Puri, the widow of the deceased, was examined on oath who deposed that the pay of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 1,040/- per month. She also added that the deceased was spending on himself about Rs. 200/- per month and after G.P.F. deduction the remaining entire salary was spent on the claimants which included the witness, three minor daughters and the mother of the deceased. She also added that after the death of her husband she gave birth to a posthumous daughter on 20th March, 1981. The age of this lady when she was examined in March, 1982, was 31 years and the age of her husband at the time of his death was 32 years.
148. There is no dispute that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing Rs. 1,040/- in all as his monthly salary and he was contributing Rs. 51/- towards his G.P.F. account. As per statement of Indira Puri, the deceased was spending on himself Rs. 200/- per month and after deducting this amount and the amount towards G.P.F. contribution, the remaining salary, according to the witness, was spent on the claimants which amount comes out to be Rs. 789/-. This amount can safely be assessed as the monthly dependency of the claimants. The loss of annual dependency as such comes out to be Rs. 9,468/-.
149. All the claimants in the present case are females. We have already discussed as to what would be the guiding factors in adopting a particular multiplier in a case of the present nature where a young Government servant died prematurely leaving behind his minor daughters, widow and widowed mother. Taking into consideration all these aspects, coupled with the cross-objections wherein the claimants had asked for the multiplier of 20, the same multiplier, as such, can safely be applied in the present case which was so done by the Tribunal also. The total dependency, as such, comes to be Rs. 1,89,360/-. Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount on account of loss of life is to be added to this amount. The claimants, as such, are entitled to Rs. 1,92,360/-. They are also entitled to the costs throughout along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the payment was made.
150. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances the appeal on behalf of the Corporation stands dismissed with costs while the cross-objections stand accepted with costs and the award made by the Tribunal is modified as referred to above.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 190 of 1983 Cross-objection No. 37 of 1984
151. Durga Singh Mandyal, the present respondent, suffered multiple leg injuries in the aforesaid accident and on his petition the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in his favour along with costs assessed at Rs. 300/-. He was also awarded 6 per cent per annum interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the petition till the amount was paid.
152. Durga Singh also is a Junior Engineer employed in the H.P. P.W.D. In a case of the present nature where compensation is being asked for by the injured, the relief can be granted in his favour as pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages.
153. In so far as the pecuniary damages in case of this claimant were concerned, those could be actual medical expenses and the loss of earnings he sustained on account of his remaining on leave for getting treatment for the injuries sustained by him. The non-pecuniary damages would be for the future comfort, loss of expectancy of life, pain and sufferings, etc.
154. Durga Singh examined himself as PW 3 and deposed on oath that in the aforesaid accident he sustained serious leg injuries and he got treatment at Solan and at Snodown Hospital, Shimla, where he was advised bed-rest for three months. He has been very specific in deposing that he joined his duties on 4th February, 1981, meaning thereby that upto that period he remained on leave. He further added that at the time of accident his salary was Rs. 1,040/- per month which has also been established from the last pay certificate brought on record by the witness. He further added that he got reimbursed medical and other expenses incurred by him from the department. This witness was serving as a Junior Engineer in Mechanical Division, H.P. P.W.D. at Dharamshala.
155. PW 4 is Dr. Kuldip Singh who has proved Exh. PE which was admission chit pertaining to Durga Singh and the certificate, Exh. PF. According to Exh. PE, Durga Singh was admitted on 28th July, 1980 and discharged on 7th September, 1980, while certificate Exh. PF certified that Durga Singh was admitted to the hospital on 28th July, 1980 and discharged on 7th September, 1980, as he was suffering from fracture back side (right) leg. He was advised three months' rest.
156. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the just compensation to be awarded in favour of the injured can definitely be assessed. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
157. The injured admitted to have been paid the actual expenses for his medical treatment and other expenses by the Government. The only pecuniary loss he sustained could be for the leave period inasmuch as a Government employee at the time of his retirement can encash his leave upto eight months. Because of this accident the injured had to be on leave, as stated by him, upto 3rd February, 1981, as he joined on 4th February, 1981. The accident took place on 25th July, 1980, meaning thereby that he remained on leave for about seven months, which leave he was legally entitled to encash at the time of his retirement and this aspect of the matter has definitely caused some monetary loss to him. He has stated that at the time of the accident he was drawing Rs. 1,040/- per month which loss for seven months can be assessed at Rs. 7,280/-. No doubt in his cross-objections he pleaded that for leave period Rs. 20,000 was to be granted in his favour but there is absolutely no base to arrive at that amount of compensation in this behalf especially when the injured himself has given his monthly pay to be Rs. 1,040/-.
158. The medical certificate issued nowhere recorded the percentage of disability suffered by the injured. No medical evidence has been examined in this particular behalf. Even the injured himself has not been specific in deposing anything about it. That does not mean that the injured did not suffer any pain and loss of some comfort, including the sufferings in the normal way of life. Taking into consideration all these aspects Rs. 25,000/- can safely be assessed as non-pecuniary damages in favour of the injured.
159. The claimant, as such, is entitled to Rs. 32,280/- and the award is to be modified to that effect. We, accordingly, modify the award of the Tribunal in the manner aforesaid.
160. On the basis of the aforesaid reasons the appeal preferred by the Corporation is dismissed with costs while the claimant is awarded Rs. 32.280/- after his cross-objections to that extent stood accepted with costs. He shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the payment on the aforesaid amount.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 192 of 1983
161. Vinod Mahajan, the claimant-respondent, was also travelling in that ill-fated bus. Luckily he survived but sustained some injuries. He put in his claim petition before the Tribunal which was allowed and the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded in favour of Mahajan along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the payment was made. The counsel's fee assessed was Rs. 300/- which was also allowed to the claimant.
162. The aforesaid award has been assailed in the present appeal by the Corporation on the ground that the compensation awarded was excessive and had been calculated on the basis of conjecture and surmises.
163. Vinod Mahajan while appealing as PW 4 stated on oath that he sustained injuries in the said accident and he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Solan, along with other injured persons. He also disclosed that he sustained fracture in his left leg and he remained on three months' leave as per advice of the medical expert after his injured portion was put under plaster. He also stated that he got the plaster removed in Civil Hospital at Dharamshala and he joined service on 8th December, 1980. According to him, he remained on two months' earned leave which he could encash in the sum of Rs. 1,800/-. He further stated that he remained on medical leave for 88 days and he could also encash the same to the tune of Rs. 2,300/-. He added that he was posted at Kotgarh which was a hilly area and on account of his injury he got himself reverted to a lower post and got himself transferred from Kotgarh. On account of this he sustained a loss of Rs. 100/- per month. He further disclosed that he spent about Rs. 4,000/- on medicines and on taking special diet for his recovery. According to him, medical reimbursement admissible to him was to the tune of Rs. 150/- per year only as per rules of the bank where he was serving.
164. PW 3 is P.C. Behak, Manager, Union Bank of India, Kotgarh, who stated that Vinod Mahajan was employed as Clerk-cum-Head Cashier, Category A, at Kotgarh and was drawing total emoluments to the tune of Rs. 889.60. The certificate issued in this behalf is Exh. P-3. He also stated that Mahajan remained on 88 days' medical leave and 58 days' leave on full pay and certificate to that effect was Exh. P-4. He also stated that the petitioner sent a representation to the higher authorities through him for his reversion and transfer. He also disclosed that the bank employees get fixed medical allowance to the tune of Rs. 150/-per year in addition to the emoluments.
165. PW 2 is Dr. J.P. Nadda who stated that Vinod Mahajan was admitted in Solan Hospital and he had multiple injuries and his X-ray of the left leg showed fracture. The doctor disclosed that plaster was done on 27th July, 1980 and he was discharged on 28th July, 1980. According to the doctor, the plaster was to be removed after 2 to 2 months. The doctor issued medical certificate, Exh. P-2, to the injured.
166. It has already been discussed that in the case of injuries the claimant could be awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal has not bifurcated the claim granted in favour of the claimant under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages but awarded Rs. 15,000/- after taking into consideration all the circumstances referred to in the evidence examined by the claimant.
167. The actual loss in terms of money to the claimant was regarding the leave salary which he could encash at the time of his superannuation and the medical expenses borne out by him. As per his statement, on this count the loss sustained by him was to the tune of Rs. 4,100/- which fact is otherwise proved by the bank Manager who had given the leave account and salary account of the claimant. Rs. 4,000/- is stated by the claimant to have been spent by him on medicines and for taking special diet for his recovery. Regarding the medicines there is no documentary evidence adduced in this behalf and there is also nothing on the record to show as to what special diet the claimant took for his recovery or whether such a diet was taken on medical advice or otherwise. Anyway the fact remains that taking of medicines by the claimant during the period of his injuries cannot be seriously disputed. Apart from that, the claimant was entitled to non-pecuniary damages also for sufferings and pain.
168. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts we think Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was just and most reasonable compensation under the circumstances. The Corporation could not point out as to how this amount was excessive taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant. That being so, we do not find any illegality in the award made by the Tribunal and as a consequence thereof the present appeal stands dismissed with costs. It may be specified here that the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of making of the petition till it is paid to him.
F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 207 of 1983 Cross-objection No. 211 of 1984
169. Kalawati submitted a claim petition for the award of compensation on account of the death of her husband, Paras Ram, who also received fatal injuries in the accident in question. There was some dispute regarding the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground whether Kalawati was the widow of the deceased or not.
170. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence examined it was legally established that Kalawati had been divorced by her first husband and thereafter she married Paras Ram deceased and, as such, she was entitled to claim the compensation as the widow of the deceased. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the absence of clear-cut deposition as to the contribution made by the deceased the monthly contribution of Paras Ram towards the claimant could be fixed at Rs. 250/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per year. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the recovery of the compensation amount.
171. The aforesaid award has been assailed by the Corporation on usual grounds and the claimant also put in her cross-objections pleading therein that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/- and her dependency was Rs. 750/- per month which should have been made the basis for awarding compensation after adopting 20 as multiplier.
172. The Corporation has not disputed the right of the claimant to get the compensation being the widow of the deceased but the only grievance put up on behalf of the Corporation has been that the amount awarded was in excess.
173. Kalawati examined herself and deposed that her husband died in the said accident and his age at that time was about 50 years. She added that he used to sell apples, potatoes and other fruits and, according to her, the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/- per month. She also added that he used to pay some amount to his father also.
174. Practically there is no other evidence examined by the claimant to prove the monthly income of the deceased. It has come on record that apart from fruit seller the deceased was an agriculturist also. Even if the monthly income stated by the claimant was accepted, which does not appear to be exaggerated amount, on the basis of her statement alone, Rs. 750/- cannot on any ground be assessed as her monthly dependency. She has stated that the deceased was also paying something to his father. That something has not been specified at all. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, the amount being paid to his father by the deceased and the amount being consumed by him, Rs. 300/- per month can safely be fixed the monthly dependency of the claimant. The yearly dependency, as such, comes out to be Rs. 3,600/-.
175. The claimant stated that the age of the deceased was 50 years and her age was 26 years, There is no evidence as to what was the longevity in the family but taking into consideration the average longevity a multiplier of 15 can safely be adopted in the present case. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 54,000/-. Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount for the loss of life is to be added to the aforesaid amount. Thus, the claimant is awarded an amount of Rs. 57,000/- with costs along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the payment is made.
176. It has come in evidence of the Corporation that interim relief of Rs. 1,000/-was paid for the death of the deceased. This amount has to be excluded from the aforesaid amount.
177. Keeping in view the foregoing reasons the appeal preferred by the Corporation is dismissed with costs while the cross-objections stand accepted and the award made by the Tribunal modified as referred to above.