Chameli Devi and Another vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimants being the mother, widow and sons of Hans Raj deceased, who was killed while driving the car HYA 26 when it was involved in an accident with the Delhi Transport Corpn. bus DLP 1201 coming from the opposite direction. This happened at about 12.30 p.m. on February 15, 1983 on the Grand Trunk Road between Pipli and Karnal. After holding that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 66,000/- as compensation, Rs. 5,000/- being payable to the mother of the deceased and the balance to his widow. No compensation was, however, granted to the sons.

A reference to the material on record would show that Hans Raj deceased was about 56 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 80 years old mother and his 50 years old widow, who were wholly dependent upon him. Both the sons, who figure as claimants in this petition, are over 30 years of age and have independent sources of income, both being employed with can be taken to the finding of the Tribunal that they were not dependent upon the deceased and were consequently not entitled to any compensation.

In so far as the amount awarded to the mother and widow of Hans Raj deceased is concerned, it will be seen that a very fair and reasonable view has been taken by the Tribunal. Hans Raj deceased was employed as a driver at a salary of almost Rs. 1,400/- per month. After making an allowance for the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself, the Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 11,000/- per annum and then proceeded to adopt a multiplier of ''6''. The main plea of the counsel for the claimants was with regard to this multiplier. The contention being that a higher multiplier should have been applied. It would be pertinent to note in this case, as mentioned earlier, that Hans Raj deceased was 56 years of age at the time of his death. He was due to retire in another two years. Drivers may work after the age of superannuation, but their working span can never extend beyond a few years thereof. The nature of the work and duties of a driver being such. Seen in this light, no occasion is provided here for adopting a higher multiplier. The compensation awarded to the claimants thus warrants no interference in appeal.

Where the Tribunal fell in error was in allowing only 6 per cent interest on the compensation awarded. The normal and well settled rule is for the award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. The interest payable to the claimants on the compensation awarded is consequently enhanced to this rate.

The appeal of the claimants is accordingly hereby partially accepted while the cross-objections are dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.