Bhagwani Devi and Others vs Krishan Kumar Saini and Others

Prem Chand Jain, C.J.—This judgment of ours would dispose of this and the connected L.P.A. Nos. 755 to 758 of 1984 and 1051 of 1984, as well as cross-objection Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 10 of 1985 in the aforesaid appeals, respectively, as the same arise out of the common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed:

On 5th December, 1979, at 8.00 p.m. an accident took place on the Rohtak-Hissar National Highway near the link road to village Bahu-Jamalpur. Tara Chand, deceased, who was coming on a scooter DLH 9814, from the side of Rohtak had turned to go on to the link road, when the car DLE 4174 came from the opposite direction, that is, from the side of Hissar and hit into the scooter. Tara Chand sustained multiple injuries, as a result of which he died at the Medical College, Rohtak, on 23rd December, 1979. Six claim petitions on behalf of widow Bhagwani Devi, four sons--Rajbir Singh, Ved Bir Singh, Ranbir Singh and Ishwar Singh and daughter Kamla Devi, were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each, on the plea that the car was driven by Krishan Kumar, Respondent No. 1, at a very high speed and it was as a result of his negligence that the accident occurred. It was also averred that the deceased was about 56 years of age and was in robust health, that his monthly income from business and agricultural land was Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the widow, sons and daughter were entitled to compensation in the amount of Rs. 40,000/- each.

These claim petitions were resisted by the Respondents.

On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal found that it was a case of contributory negligence, inasmuch as both the car driver and the deceased were equally to blame. In view of this finding, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded as compensation to Bhagwani Devi widow, Kamla Devi daughter and Rajbir Singh disabled son. The claim petitions of the other three sons were dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved from the award of the Tribunal, the widow, sons and daughter filed separate appeals--F.A.O. Nos. 40, 37, 38, 41, 39 and 42 in this Court. On consideration of the evidence, the learned single Judge reversed the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence and fastened the blame of the accident wholly upon the car driver. But so far as the amount of compensation which was determined by the Tribunal is concerned, the same was found to be adequate. Consequently, the appeals of the widow, the daughter and Rajbir Singh were allowed and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. The learned single Judge further held that out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each shall be paid to Kamla Devi and Rajbir Singh and the balance to the widow Bhagwani Devi. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeals of the three sons, namely, Ved Bir Singh, Ranbir Singh and Ishwar Singh were dismissed. Still dissatisfied the present L.P.As. have been filed by the claimants. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Respondents also.

Mr. L.M. Suri, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the learned single Judge had erred in applying the multiplier of 6. According to the learned Counsel, the deceased was aged 56 years and enjoying a good robust health and that the multiplier should have been at least 10. The learned Counsel further submitted that the deceased was earning about Rs. 2,500/- per month and contributing Rs. 2,000/- per month towards his family. On the basis of these submissions, the learned Counsel urged that the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge was quite inadequate. In support of his contention, on the question of multiplier, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the judgments of this Court in Sher Singh alias Shera and Another Vs. Mukand Lal and Others, and Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Others On the other hand, Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submitted that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation at all as the brick-kiln in which the deceased was the partner and the agricultural land which he was cultivating have been left behind and that the claimants have not been able to show that there has been any diminution in the income of the family after the death of the deceased. On the question of multiplier, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned single Judge had rightly applied the multiplier of 6 years in the instant case. In support of his first contention, Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh relied on a single Bench judgment of this Court in Gurdial Kaur v. Atma Singh (1985) 87 PLR 602 .

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and find that the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge, in the circumstances of the case, is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. The deceased was enjoying perfectly good health and there can be hardly any doubt that he would have at least lived upto the age of 70 years. In this situation, taking into consideration the age and health of the deceased, we find that it would be just if multiplier of 8 instead of 6 is applied to the instant case.

Coming to the earning of the deceased, we find from the evidence that he was earning about Rs. 17,000/- per annum. Out of this amount, the deceased must have been spending about Rs. 12,000/- per annum on his family. Taking this amount of Rs. 12,000/- as income spent on the family and applying the multiplier of 8, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 96,000/-. The contention of Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh, learned Counsel, on the basis of the judgment in Gurdial Kaur''s case (1985) 87 PLR 602, is not tenable nor is the ratio of that judgment applicable to the facts of the case in hand, as there is no evidence on the record to prove that after the death of the deceased, the claimants were getting income from the brick-kiln.

It is next contended by the learned Counsel that an amount of Rs. 17,000/- was spent on the treatment of the deceased. The learned Counsel also submitted that the claimants were entitled to a substantial amount for mental agony. Without going much into the details of the expenditure and the question of mental agony, we hold that the claimants be awarded an amount of Rs. 4,000/- towards expenses, mental agony, pain and sufferings.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

The learned single Judge had rejected the claim of the three sons. Before us, Mr. Suri, learned Counsel, very fairly stated that the three sons, namely, Ved Bir Singh, Ranbir Singh and Ishwar Singh, do not claim any share in the amount of Rs. 60,000/- as awarded by the learned single Judge and that they may be held entitled to a share only in the amount of Rs. 40,000/-, which has been enhanced by us in these appeals.

In view of our finding and the statement made by Mr. L.M. Suri before us, we allow these appeals partially and enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 60,000/- would be paid as compensation to Bhagwani Devi, widow, Kamla Devi, daughter and Rajbir Singh, son, as directed by the learned single Judge; while the enhanced amount of Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to all the six claimants in equal shares. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Cross-objections filed by the Respondents are dismissed.