Bimla and Others vs Brahma Nand and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—Appellants have filed this appeal to impugn the order passed by tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while computing compensation income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. According to him, multiplier applied by the tribunal is on the lower side.

Learned counsel for the respondents have resisted the plea. According to them, compensation has been correctly computed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard.

It appears that an accident occurred on 16.02.2008. Deceased Rajbir was traveling in a canter. At about 5.00 p.m. when the canter reached the area of Kundli, the offending vehicle (a truck) struck against the canter. Due to impact, Rajbir died on the spot. He was shifted to Civil hospital, Sonipat where his post mortem examination was conducted. An FIR was also lodged under sections 279/ 304A IPC at police station Kundli. A claim petition was lodged by his legal heirs. On the basis of evidence, tribunal came to the conclusion that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle. His wife who appeared as PW-1 deposed that deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. by working as conductor. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence establishing monthly income of the deceased, same was assessed as Rs. 3200/- p.m. Applying the unit system, annual dependency of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 2,490/- p.m. annual being Rs. 29,880/-. Taking the age of deceased as 26 years on the basis of post mortem report, applicable multiplier was found to be 16. Applying the said multiplier, compensation was assessed as Rs. 4,78,080/- ( Rs. 29,880 x 16). Another sum of Rs. 4,500/- was granted on account of funeral expenses & loss of estate. Rs. 5,000/- was granted to appellant no. 1 on account of loss of consortium. Total compensation was, thus, worked as Rs. 4,87,580/-. In my considered view while computing compensation income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. Accident took place in the year 2008. At that time, it can be safely assumed that even a casual labourer would be earning more than Rs. 3,200/-. Thus, taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,600/- p.m., annual dependency would come to Rs. 32,400/- ( Rs. 3600-900= Rs. 2700 x 12). It appears that tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 26 years. Multiplier of 16 has been applied by the tribunal which is appropriate. Applying the aforesaid criteria, compensation amount would come to Rs. 5,18,400/- ( Rs. 32,400 x 16). Accordingly, amount of compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced by another Rs. 40,320/-. Appeal is allowed in these terms. Rest of the award is maintained as such. As the case has been heard and decided on merits, delay of 482 days in filing the appeal is deemed to have been condoned.