Arjun Singh and Another vs Harchander Singh and Others

G.G. Sohani, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 25th June, 1974 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claims Case No. 119 of 1972.

The appeal arises out of an application filed by the Appellants u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore. The claimant''s case was that their son Inder Singh died as a result of an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a truck owned by Defendant No. 1 and driven by Defendant No. 2. The accident took place on 28th August, 1972, at about 9.30 p.m., when Inder Singh was knocked down by the truck in question. As a result of the injuries caused to him, Inder Singh died on the same day at 11 p.m. The Petitioners, who are the parents of Inder Singh, claimed a sum of Rs. 1,35,250/- by way of compensation from the Respondents. The claim was resisted by the Defendant-Respondents. The Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 7,140/- on account of the death of their son Inder Singh caused by the negligent driving of the truck by Defendant No. 2. Partly aggrieved by this award, the claimants have preferred this appeal. Defendant No. 3 has also filed cross-objections.

Learned Counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the claimants were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 7,140/-only. It was contended that the deceased was the only son of the claimants who were dependent upon him and the compensation awarded was, in the circumstances, grossly inadequate. On behalf of Defendants, Shri Behal contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused as a result of negligent driving of the truck by Defendant No. 2. It was further contended that the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.

In view of the contentions raised before us, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident, which resulted in the death of Inder Singh, was caused as a result of negligent driving of the truck by Defendant No. 2. PW-3 Ghanshyamdas, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident, deposed that Inder Singh was going by the left side of the road when he was suddenly knocked down by the truck, that the driver of the truck did not blow any horn, and that the driver of the truck ran away after the accident. To the same effect is the testimony of PW-4 Vijay Singh, a motor mechanic who had his workshop at the scene of occurrence. PW-5 Phausaheb, who had also witnessed the accident, deposed that the truck, which was being driven rashly knocked down Inder Singh who was going ahead. Defendant No. 2, who was driving the truck at the material time, admitted in cross-examination that the road where the accident took place was wide enough and was well lighted. It seems that he did not notice the cyclist, who was going ahead, and thus the deceased was knocked down. In view of all this evidence on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident was caused as a result of the negligent driving of the truck by Defendant No. 2.

The next question for consideration is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. PW-2 Arjun Singh, father of the deceased, deposed, that he was 52 years old, that his son, who was aged 21 years at the time of the accident, was working as an apprentice and receiving a stipend of Rs. 100/- per month and that his son would have in due course opened a scooter repair shop when he would have easily earned about Rs. 30/- per day. He further deposed that his son was contributing Rs. 80/- per month for family expenses. There is no reason to disbelieve all this evidence. The Tribunal held that the claimant''s loss would be about Rs. 840/-per year, but the Tribunal erred in taking 10 as the multiplier. The sum of Rs. 7,140/-awarded by the Tribunal appears to us to be too low. Keeping in mind all the relevant facts and contingencies, a sum of Rs. 15,000/-would, in our opinion, be adequate compensation in the circumstances of the case.

For all these reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/-(fifteen thousand'') as compensation, which shall be payable by the Defendants jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at six per cent per annum from the date of the claim till realisation. The claimants shall be entitled to costs awarded by the Tribunal, but they shall bear their own costs, of this appeal. The cross-objections are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal and the cross-objections.