Bimla Devi Aggarwal vs Ganda Singh and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This first appeal from the award dated 15.4.1982 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short ''the Tribunal''), was earlier decided by me vide my judgment dated 23.4.1986.

Bimla Devi Appellant, mother of Sunil Kumar Aggarwal deceased who was the victim of the unfortunate accident, had filed this appeal through a lawyer who has since shifted his practice to the Supreme Court. Therefore, none was present on her behalf on 23.4.1986. I affirmed the award made by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Review Application No. 22-CII of 1987 was filed by the Appellant which was allowed by me vide my order dated 2.9.1987. I recalled my judgment aforesaid and directed the appeal to be heard once again on its merits.

It is not necessary to dilate over again on the circumstances in which the accident took place. All that be noticed is that the learned Tribunal vide its award under appeal held that Sunil Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PUM 5305 driven by Ganda Singh Respondent No. 1 and owned by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, Respondent No. 2. The question that has, however, been debated before me is with regard to the quantum of compensation to which the Appellant was entitled. On certain facts, there is no dispute. The deceased was 27 years of age. He was unmarried and was working as a medical representative with a pharmaceutical company at the time of accident. It is clear from the certificate Exh. PW 8/A issued by the employer of the deceased that he was getting Rs. 550/ - per month as salary. Besides, he was entitled to a working allowance of Rs. 15/ - per day while at headquarters and Rs. 27/ - per day when at out-stations. The learned Tribunal worked out the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,180/ - per month. Then on the basis of a fair presumption that the deceased while on tour must be spending Rs. 300/ - per month worked out his net income at Rs. 880/ -. Then deducting 1/3rd of this income for expenditure by the deceased on himself, it was held that he must be left with Rs. 596/ - per month, i.e. Rs. 7,152/ - per annum, which is the loss to his estate on his sudden demise.

On evidence it has been found that the Appellant is 55 years of age. The learned Tribunal worked out the dependency of the Appellant on the deceased for a period of 10 years and awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/ -. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has with some amount of vehemence urged before me that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal has resulted in awarding a grossly inadequate compensation to the Appellant. He placed reliance on Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation 1982 ACJ 300 (Delhi), wherein the father and the mother of the deceased were aged 63 and 59 years respectively and the multiplier of 16 years'' purchase dependency was applied to work out the compensation payable to them. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in Hansraj and Others Vs. Neelam Chopra and Others, , wherein the deceased was 25 years of age and his mother has been awarded compensation by applying a multiplier of 16 to the annual loss to the estate of the deceased on his death.

It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, that the compensation already awarded by the learned Tribunal is quite adequate and I should uphold my earlier judgment by which I had held that there is no scope for enhancement of compensation over and above what had been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, I feel that it would be working injustice to the Appellant if she is not allowed compensation consistent with the ratio of judgments in Chameli Wati''s case 1982 ACJ 300 (Delhi) and Hansraj and Others Vs. Neelam Chopra and Others, . The accident in the present case occurred on 29.2.1980. A period of more than 7 years has already gone by. The normal life expectancy in our country now is about 70 years. It would, therefore, be appropriate to apply 16 years'' purchase dependency to work out the compensation payable to the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,152 � 16 = Rs. 1,14,432/ -.

I, therefore, allow this appeal, modify the award of the learned Tribunal and enhance the amount of compensation payable to the Appellant to Rs. 1,14,432/ -. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be liable jointly and severally for the payment of this amount of compensation. The Appellant shall also be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application made by her before the learned Tribunal till the date of payment of the entire amount of compensation to her. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.