Harbans Kaur and Others vs Balwinder Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Delay of 67 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned in this case. The appellant No. 1 is a widow who had lost her husband in the accident. She, for want of resources, could not contact a counsel in time for filing the appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, supported by an affidavit, delay of 67 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal

This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Charan Singh died in a roadside accident that took place on 11.12.2010. On his death, his widow and children had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, "the Tribunal") allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 3,33,000/-.

Charan Singh was of the age of 55 years at the time of his death. He was working as a mason and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Claiming Charan Singh to be the only bread winner of the family, the claimants have sought a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation.

The respondents resisted the claim petition. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation.

Learned Tribunal has found the evidence regarding the occupation and income of the deceased to be unreliable. On the other hand, learned Tribunal took the deceased as unskilled labourer and assessed a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month as his income. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and multiplying the remainder with 12, a sum of Rs. 28,000/- has been found as the annual dependency of the claimants. Multiplying the annual dependency with 11, the multiplier adopted in this case, a sum of Rs. 3,08,000/- has been found as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Charan Singh. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads and a sum of Rs. 3,33,000/- has thus, been awarded as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there has been unrebutted evidence on the record to prove that the deceased had been a mason. According to him, there was no reason for the Tribunal not to take the deceased as a mason by occupation. According to him, learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the deceased as unskilled labourer and assessing Rs. 3500/- per month as his income. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal did not even take into consideration the number of dependent family members of the deceased which is 4. According to him, as per decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , deduction of 1/4th is to be made in case the dependent family members had been 4 to 6. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. He has further submitted that the compensation has been assessed without adding any amount towards future prospects. According to him, 15% is to be added to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects as the deceased was above 50 years of age and the income of the deceased has, thus, to be supplemented to assess the compensation. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that adequate amount has not been awarded as compensation under the conventional heads.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the adequate amount has already been assessed as compensation in this case. According to him, there is no ground on the record under which compensation allowed by learned Tribunal could be enhanced.

Whatever is there on the record to prove that the deceased was a mason is in the shape of statements of the claimants themselves and no independent witness has been examined to prove that the deceased was a mason by occupation. Therefore, the deceased could only be taken as an unskilled labourer. However, the accident having taken place on 11.12.2010, at least a sum of Rs. 4,000/- should have been taken as monthly income of the deceased.

The deceased had been 55 years of age. As per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , future prospects have to be added in cases where the deceased had been self employed or even working on fixed wages. 15% would be available as future prospects in this case and adding 15% of Rs. 4,000/- to it, I find a sum of Rs. 4,600/- as the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of compensation. The claimants are the widow and three sons of the deceased. They claim themselves to be dependents of the deceased. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they were not dependent on the income of the deceased. So, the dependent family members being 4, deduction of 1/4th has to be made which comes to Rs. 1,150/-. Deducting it from Rs. 4,600/-, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 3,450/-. Multiplied with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 41,400/-. There is no dispute regarding the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal in this case. Multiplying the annual dependency with 11, I find a sum of Rs. 4,55,400/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Charan Singh. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 4,95,400/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,33,000/- to Rs. 4,55,400/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 2,85,400/- shall fall to the share of Harbans Kaur, appellant No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 70,000/- each shall fall to the share of appellants No. 2 to 4. The other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal shall remain the same.