Dhanpat Rai and Another vs State of Haryana and Another

K.P. Bhandari, J.—On the fateful day, i.e., 12th November, 1983, deceased Chaman Lal along with Joginder Pal was standing on the island situated on the left side if one goes from the bus stand to Industrial Area. Bus No. HYA 8152 came from Tribune Chowk. It was being driven rashly and negligently. The bus hit Chaman Lal. He was removed to the hospital. The impact of the accident was so much that the bus stopped at a distance of 160 steps. The deceased was 25 years of age.

The father and mother of the deceased have filed claims u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants stated in the application that the deceased was employed in Saudi Arabia and he was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month. He came back to India on 16th May, 1982 and was temporarily employed in the Industrial Area at a salary of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The appellants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The State by means of written statement repelled the stand of the claimants. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide its award dated 14.2.1985 partly accepted the claim of the appellants and allowed them compensation of Rs. 57,600/-with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realisation. Now, the claimants-appellants have come in appeal.

The State has accepted the award and has not filed any appeal. The fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HYA 8152 owned by the respondent State is not disputed. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. The Claims Tribunal in its award awarded compensation on the basis that income of the deceased was Rs. 500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased must have spent Rs. 200/- per month for his personal expenses and determined the dependency on the deceased at Rs. 3,600/- per annum and applied the multiplier of ''16''.

Mr. Hemant Kumar, counsel for the appellants, strongly argued that the compensation awarded is inadequate and should be enhanced. Mr. L.P. Sood, District Attorney, submitted that the claim allowed by the Tribunal is correct and the award of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was a Technician who was employed in Saudi Arabia at a salary of Rs. 4,000/-. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the statement of Moti Ram, PW 4, who has stated that the deceased at the time of the accident was employed as Supervisor in his industry at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/-. Moti Ram, PW 4, has stated on oath that the deceased Chaman Lal was employed in his industry since June 1983. He used to be paid Rs. 1,200/- per month as his emoluments. He further stated that he has brought ledger of the firm and the payment of salary at the rate of Rs. 1,200/-per month has been described in the ledger of the company. In cross-examination the State did not question the entries made in the ledger. The Tribunal brushed aside the evidence of Moti Ram on the ground that the letter of appointment of Chaman Lal deceased has not been produced. I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has wrongly brushed aside the evidence of Moti Ram, according to whom the deceased Chaman Lal was employed in the firm at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month and the entry regarding his employment was made in the ledger. The ledger is produced in the court. The State has not questioned the correctness of the ledger entries. Otherwise also, a Technician is engaged at a daily wage of Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/-. In my opinion, there was no justification in not accepting the stand of the appellants that Chaman Lal deceased was employed at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month. So, I am of the opinion that his monthly emoluments were Rs. 1,200/- out of which he must have spent l/3rd amount for his personal use. So the loss of the claimants was to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month. So the loss is worked out to be Rs. 9,600/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, the appellants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,53,600/-. I accordingly partly accept this appeal with costs and order that the appellants-claimants are entitled to the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,53,600/-together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if already paid, should be deducted out of this amount at the time of payment. Counsel''s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.