Gargi Devi and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated the 21st of January, 1963.

On facts, there is no dispute. The Appellants are the widow and the minor children of the deceased. The deceased was an Electrician with the Punjab State Electricity Board at Phillaur. He was overrun by a bus belonging to the Punjab Roadways which was proceeding from Ludhiana to Jullunder. The Tribunal has found that the death of the bread-winner of the family was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and as such it has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,800/- as compensation. The compensation was allotted to different heirs by the Tribunal; and so far as that allotment is concerned, there is no dispute. The claimants are not satisfied with the award and have come up in appeal to this Court.

The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the claimants is that the compensation awarded is too low and the basis on which it has been calculated, is not proper ; and in support of his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the decisions in Madhuri Chaudhuri and Others Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation, ; The Northern India Transporters Insurance Company v. Amra Wati 1966 A.C.J. 165: 1966 P.L.R. 538; and Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Munnabai and Ors. 1967 A.C.J. 214: 1967 M.P.L.J. 963. The basis on which the Tribunal calculated the compensation may be mentioned: According to the Tribunal, Rs. 100/- per mensem was the remuneration which the deceased got from the Electricity Board. His family consisted of himself, his wife and six children; in all eight. The deceased was forty years of age at the time of his death. The Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 40/-per mensem towards the amount which the deceased utilized for himself alone and held that Rs. 60/- was the benefit to the family. The Tribunal multiplied 60 x 12; and then further multiplied the figure by 15, that is the fifteen years for which the deceased would have continued to be in service ; and thus the figure of Rs. 10,800/- was arrived at. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has, in the first instance, challenged the fixation of the period of fifteen years. According to him, the deceased was a technician and in the ordinary circumstances would have continued, up to the age of 58, in Government service ; and, in any case, would have earned far beyond the age of 60 ; but, in any case, he could have easily earned this amount up to the age of 60. Therefore, the minimum period, for which the benefit would have been available to the family, would be 20 years and not 15 years. It is further urged that the figure of 40 fixed by the Tribunal for the personal expenses of the deceased is far too high. He had a family of eight persons to support including himself. In the circumstances, it appears to me that the deduction of Rs. 40/- per mensem is far in excess, considering the needs of the family. I accordingly reduce the deduction from 40/- to Rs. 30/- ; and increase the period, for which the benefit would have been available, from 15 to 20 years. In this way, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 16,800/-instead of Rs. 10,800/-. The corresponding allotment made to the heirs will also increase on the basis adopted by the Tribunal.

The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, contended that the criteria fixed by the Tribunal was correct and that I should not interfere with the same. According to the learned Counsel, the maximum period, up to which the deceased would have got a salary, would be 58 years; and, therefore, it is maintained that fixation of 20 years would not be justified. I am unable to agree with this contention because if it was the case of a person who was not a technical hand, the contention might have been sound. It is well known that the approximate expectancy of life in India has gone up ; and one can safely assume that the deceased would have continued to earn up to the age of 60. So far as the fixation of Rs. 40/- per mensem for the personal expenses is concerned, one has to keep in view the total earning of the deceased and the total number of his family members. I cannot assume that the deceased was starving his family. Therefore, the maximum, that could have been deducted in the circumstances of the case, for the personal expenses of the deceased could not, in any case, go beyond Rs. 30/-Therefore, in my opinion, the award was too much on the low side and did not keep the realities of the matter in view.

I accordingly allow this appeal and enhance the compensation from Rs. 10,800/-to Rs. 16,800/-; but there will be no order as to costs.