Bal Krishan Malhotra and Another vs Piara Singh and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—This appeal is by the claimants filed against order dated January 28, 1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereby a sum of Rs. 58,800/- was awarded to claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per-cent per annum amounting to Rs. 17,052/- from the date of the petition till the date of the order, the total amount being Rs. 75,852/- and further interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal amount was awarded till realistion.

Since only the question of quantum of compensation is argued in the appeal, it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the accident took place on September 2, 1984." Deepak Malhotra was riding Scooter No. DHW-2438 and Ashwini Kumar was sitting on the pillion seat. One Matador Vehicle No. P.I.-5036 came from the opposite direction and while overtaking another car came to the wrong side and struck against the scooter which was dragged. Ultimately Deepak Malhotra died Several issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Matador aforesaid whose driver was Tejinder Singh respondent. While awarding compensation, the earning capacity of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 800/- and dependency of the claimants (parents) was fixed at Rs. 350/-. In this manner, a figure of Rs. 58,800/- was arrived at by applying multiplier of 14 (Rs. 350 x 12x14).

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, multiplier should have been 16. According to him, the deceased Deepak Mallhotra was aged about 25 years. Bal Krishan claimant is aged abort 61 years and the other claimant Smt. Sushila Devi (mother) is aged about 55 years. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of D. V. Sehgal J. in Bimla Devi Aggarwal v. Ganda Singh (1988 ) 93 P. L. R. 104. In that case, the deceased was aged about 27 years and she mother-claimant was aged about 55 years and 16 was applied as multiplier. The question of fixing suitable multiplier has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case and no decision can be followed as a precedent. No doubt, in the case of Bimla Devi Aggarwal, 16 was applied as the multiplier, In Colonel K. S. Dhaliwal and Anr. v. Jagdeep Riar (1986 ) 89 P. L. R. 121, S. S. Sodhi, J. applied a multplier of 14 in the case of father who was 60 years old and mother 52 years. The basic principles which are to be taken into consideration have already been laid down by a Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P. L. R. 1.. In the present case, it cannot be said that by fixing multiplier of 14, the judgment, is erroneous to call for any interference in appeal.

It has been argued that dependency of the parents was wrongly fixed at Rs. 350/- per month out of income of Rs. 800/- per month, evidence regarding which was accepted by the Tribunal The contention is that apart from the evidence of the salary of Rs. 800/- per month being pad to the deceased by his brother, the deceased was also earning himself by practising Ayurveda There is force in the contention that dependency of the parents has been fixed on the lower side. The deceased was working with his brother, although at that time he was only a student. Oral evidence that he was issuing prescriptions of his own and getting extra income at the rate of rate of Rs. 5/-per prescription was rightly discarded by the Tribunal because whatever income the two brothers were earning, it was cut of that the deceased was getting Rs. 800/- per mensem from his brother. It was after the deceased had passed the necessary examination that he would have started his own practice. The fact cannot be lost sight of that after a few years he would have married and his liabilities would have increased. Likewise, the parents, who are aged never about(sic) years, would not continue to get the same support which they were getting from the deceased. It is keeping in view all these facts that the income of the deceased at the time of his death was taken into consideration. Since the deceased was a student and working with his brother, leaving one-third for his own expenses, it could legitimately be said that the remaining amount was available to the parents on account of their dependency or accretion to the estate of the deceased. In this manner, the dependency of the parents-claimants would be to the tune of Rs. 500/- per mensem (rounded) and compensation would be Rs. 84,000/- (Rs. 500 x 12 x 14).

Learned counsel for the appellants separately claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards accretion to the estate of the deceased on the basis of the judgment in N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and Anr. 1985 A. C. J. 75. Although no ground of appeal was taken up in this respect, this fact has been noticed and taken into consideration while fixing the dependency. Therefore, no separate amount is being allowed on this account.

For the reasons recorded above this appeal is accepted. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are allowed in all a sum of Rs. 84,009/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum thereon from the date of claim application till realisation against the respondents as per their liability in between as determined by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.