Golu vs Jaswant Singh and another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On November 19, 1978 at about 2 P.M. bus No. PUC-3124 of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation while over-taking another vehicle on the grand-trunk Road, a little beyond, Goraya crashed head-long into a fiat car PUV-7054 coming from the opposite direction. Three occupants of the car died as a result of the injuries suffered by them; while the others received injuries. The deceased being Ashok Kumar, the driver of the car, his miner son Bobby and Sudesh Kumar. The injured included Asha Rani, the widow of said Sudesh Kumar, deceased, their minor children Golu and Chintu besides Kusam Jindal, the widow of Ashok Kumar and their son Manu.

All the above named injured filed separate applications u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by them in this accident. In addition a claim for compensation was also put in by Asha Rani and the other legal representatives of Sudesh Kumar, deceased, for the loss suffered by them on account of his death. Similarly, Kusam Jindal the widow of Ashok Kumar, deceased, claimed compensation for the loss arising from his death. Finally, there was a claim by Amin Chand and Bimal Kumar, the owners of the car PUV-7054 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the damage to the car.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident here took place entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent Jaswant Singh, the driver of the bus involved in this accident. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to award different amounts as compensation to the claimants in respect of the claims put-forth by them.

This order will dispose of the bunch of 7 appeals being F.A.O. 400 to 406 of 1981 arising from this accident filed by the claimants seeking enhanced compensation.

The finding on the issue of negligence was not questioned nor indeed does any challenge thereto survive. The 7 appeals filed in this behalf by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation being F.A.O. 411 to 417 of 1981 having been dismissed in limine on October 16, 1981.

Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation and if so, to what extent, is thus the question which arises for consideration in these appeals.

Taking up the claim for compensation on account of the death of Sudesh Kumar, deceased, the evidence on record shows that he was only 25 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his young widow Asha Rani, aged 23 years and two minor sons Chintu aged 4 years and Golu who was 3 years old at that time. Besides this there is also his mother Raj Rani. Sudesh Kumar was employed as Manager of the Branch of Usha Sales Company at Jalandhar. His salary being Rs. 1000/- per month. The Tribunal took the loss to the claimants to be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16 thereto awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation.

It was the contention of Mr. L.M. Suri that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss to be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The argument being that there were bright prospects of advancement in life for the deceased and at any rate it could not be said that the deceased would have spent half his salary upon himself when he also had his mother, widow and two minor children to support. Mr. L.M. Suri, further sought to contend that the appropriate multiplier in this case should be taken to be at least 18, of not 20.

The compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased for the loss sufferred by them on account of his death, has to be determined keeping in view the principles set out by the Full Bench of our High Court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1 and by the Division Bench in Asha Rani and others v. Union of India (1982) 84 P.L.R. 466. What needs to be particularly emphasised here is that the young the age of the widow and on account thereof the comparatively greater liklihood of her remarriage. This aspect has, however, to be balanced with the other factors set out in the two authorities referred to above. The circumstances of this case, therefore, do not provide any occasion for deviating from the normal multiplier to be adopted in such cases namely 16. The Tribunal was, however, in error in taking the loss to be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. As is well known in the normal expenses of the house, there are certain fixed expenses, like house rent, water and electricity charges and furnishings which are not really effected by the addition or substraction of one member of the family. Seen in this light, it cannot be assumed that out of an income of Rs. 1,000/- what the deceased would have spent upon himself could be as much as Rs. 500/- per month. It would, therefore, be fair and reasonable to take the loss suffered by the claimants to be at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. Computed at this rate with a multiplier of 16, the claimants must be held entitled to and are hereby awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,44,000/-. Out of the amount awarded Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to Raj Rani mother of the deceased, Rs. 35,000/- each to the two children and the balance to the widow Asha Rani.

The amounts awarded to the minor claimants Chintu and Golu shall be paid to them on such terms as the Tribunal may consider to be in their best interests.

Turning now to the claim arising from the death of the other deceased namely, Ashok Kumar, he too was only 25 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his young widow Kusam Jindal and their minor son Manu aged 3 years. Their other child Bobby was killed in this accident. Ashok Kumar was working as a shopkeeper at Mandi Gobindgarh. According to the testimony of Arjan Singh (P. W. 14) from the officer of the income tax office at Patiala, his income for the assessment year 1976-77 was assessed Rs. 1700/- for the next year, that is, 1977-78 it was Rs. 4835/- and for 1978-79 it was Rs. 9180/-. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 750/- per month. After making an allowance of the amount that the deceased must have spent upon himself, Rs. 400/-was taken to be loss suffered by the claimants. It has come in evidence that the widow of Ashok Jindal has since remairred in February 17, 1980. The Tribunal, therefore, took Rs. 400/- per month as the loss and applying a multiplier of 15 thereto awarded Rs. 72,000/- as compensation and in addition a sum of Rs. 452/- which were the expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased during the period he remained in the hospital after this accident until his death.

Appliying similar reasons as in the case of Sudesh Kumar, deceased, it would be fair and reasonable to take the loss to be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Considering the young age of minor claimant Manu, the normal multiplier of 16 clearly deserves to be adopted. The total compensation, thus, payable to the claimants is hereby enhanced on this basis to Rs. 96,000/-, besides Rs. 452/- as expenses of treatment. In the circumstances, the entire enhanced compensation is hereby awarded to Manu the minor child of the deceased.

In this case too, the Tribunal shall pay the amount awarded to the minor claimant on such terms and conditions as are considered to be in his best interest and welfare.

Now come the claims relating to compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimants in this accident, Asha Rani, the widow of Sudesh Kumar, deceased, was the worst effected amongst the injured here. According to the evidence of Dr. R. Bhalla (P. W. 7), Assistant Professor at the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, there were 3 injuries on her person as described in the certificate Exhibit A-ll. These included a fracture of right femur bone besides an injury on her right elbow and scalp. On account of this fracture in her right thigh traction had to be applied to her and intramedullary nail was also put in the right femur on December 18, 1978. As a result of this injury she has also suffered a disability which is permanent in nature, in that in, walking there is satiffness in her knee and movement thereof is restricted to 110 degrees only. She remained hospitalised from November 19, 1978 till January 6, 1979 and thereafter had to keep coming to the hospital for check up. The last such visit according to Dr. R. Bhalla was on October 3, 1979, The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5560/20Ps. as the expenses actually incurred by her for her treatment, Rs. 2000/- for special diet, Rs, 1260/- as the amount spent as taxi fare and in addition Rs. 5000/- for pain and sufferings and a similar amount for the disability suffered by her. The total amount, thus, being rounded of at Rs. 18,800/-.

It will be seen from the evidence relevant to this matter that the injuries suffered by Asha Rani were of such nature that she required hospitalisation for over a month and half and had to continue her visits to the hospital till almost a year after the accident and what is more she is now left with a permanent disability of stiffness in the knee which is of such nature that she can no longer sit normally in a chair. Doubtless to say it would also effect her ability to do house work- Being a house wife, this is indeed an important factor to be borne in mind in assessing compensation to be awarded for pain and sufferings and also this disability. Taking an over all view of the nature and extent of the injuries and the disability, the amount awarded to her under these heads is hereby enhanced to Rs. 35,000/-, in addition to the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal. These total comes to Rs. 43,820/-. The compensation payable to the claimant is rounded of to the figure to Rs. 45,000/-.

Enhanced compensation was also sought for the injuries suffered by Golu. This case, however, provides no occasion for interference in the award of the Tribunal. Only 4 simple injuries were received by the claimant here, which according to the doctor were minor and would leave no permanent scar. Having regard, therefore, to the nature of these injuries, the amount awarded by the Tribunal in this case must be upheld and affirmed.

The case of the other son of Sudesh Kumar deceased namely, Chintu stands on a different footing. This child suffered four injuries which included a fracture of the mandible of the right side and he had to be operated upon on this account. He was hospitalised on the two occasions, first from November 19, 1978 to November 25, 1978 and then from 7th to 11th December, 1978. The Tribunal besides awarding Rs. 940/- as expenses actually incurred OH his treatment, allowed Rs. 1000/- for special diet, and a sum of Rs. 2000/- as damages. In the circumstances it would be just and reasonable to enhance this figure by another Rs. 1000/-. The total amount of compensation is consequently enhanced to the rounded figure of Rs. 5,000/-.

Manu Jindal suffered two fractures in this accident one was in the shaft of the left humeurs and the other was a displaced fracture of the distal and of the right radius. This child required hospitalisation for three days on account of these injuries. Having regard to the nature of these injuries, the pain and sufferings likely to have been caused, the general damages payable in respect thereof are enhanced to Rs. 47000/-, to make the total compensation payable to this claimant to be Rs. 6000/- (inclusive of Rs. 300/- as treatment expenses and Rs. 1000/- for special diet).

Finally, turning to the claim for the damage to the car involved in this accident, there is the unrebutted testimony of P.S. Nakra, Surveyor, who after examining the car submitted his report with regard to the damage thereto. He estimated this loss to be Rs. 12,400/- after allowing depreciation. The claimants are clearly entitled to compensation to this extent. The amount awarded as compensation as damage to the car is accordingly enhanced to Rs. 12,400/-.

In the result the compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The claimants shall in addition be entitled interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of their respective applications till the date of payment thereof. The appellants shall also be entitled to costs of these appeals. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/-.