Kabal Singh vs Mohinder Kaur and Another

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal has been filed by the driver, owner and the Insurance Company against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, dated 31.5.1983 which on a claim petition filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- as compensation with 10% interest from the date of filing of claim petition on account of death of her son Kulbir Singh, who died in a vehicular accident on 7.2.1982.

In the cross-objection filed on behalf of Smt. Mohinder Kaur prayer has been made for enhancement of compensation.

The challenge to the award is that the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimant on the deceased has not been properly determined. Further challenge to the award is that the! multiplier of 5 instead of 16 should have been applied and the finding of the tribunal to the effect that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUV 8665, is not based on any evidence.

Learned counsel for the respondent has defended the award of the Tribunal. He urged that the income of the deceased has been proved on record and it has also been proved that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. He has prayed for enhancement of compensation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

The tribunal had returned a categoric finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of truck No. PUV 8665. This finding is based on the testimony of Parbhu, PW-1 and Ajmer Singh, PW-2 produced by the claimant. The presence of Ajmer Singh, PW-2 cannot be doubted as at the time of accident he was going towards the fields of Gurbax Singh on a tractor which was being driven by him. It has come in the testimony of Parbhu that at the time of accident he was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor by the side of Ajmer Singh. It has also come in his statement that the car was being driven at a speed of 40 k.m. per hour and was on its left hand side. A truck came from the opposite side which hit the car and dragged it towards the left side of the road facing towards Ambala on the kacha portion. He has stated that one person who was sitting on the back seat of the car died because of rash and negligent driving of the truck and he brought out one injured person from the car, who was sikh gentleman who also died at the spot. His statement was recorded by the police at the spot. His statement was corroborated by Ajmer Singh, PW-2. This Court has no reason to discard the testimony of Parbhu, PW-1 and Ajmer Singh, PW-2, The factum of negligence on the part of driver of the of fending truck has been duly proved.

The deceased was 27 years old and was a qualified pharmacist. He was running a chemist shop in partnership under the name and style as Okara Medicos at Delhi. Smt. Mohinder Kaur, mother of the deceased had deposed that the deceased used to give her Rs.1,000/- per moth for the expenses etc. The total income of the deceased for the assessment year 1977-78 was amounting to Rs. 13,032/-. For the same year, the income was revised by the Income Tax Officer vide his order Ex. PD wherein share of profit of the deceased from the firm was shown to be Rs. 16,830/-. From the comparative study of Ex.PD and Ex.PE., it appears that the deceased himself had shown the profit from the firm amounting to Rs.9,192/- plus salary of Rs. 3,840/- from the shop where he was carrying on his business as pharmacist. This fact finds corroboration from the statement of mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the carry home income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Out of this amount of Rs. 12,000/- after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the dependency of the claimant on the deceased would be Rs. 8,000/-per annum.

However, as regards multiplier, Smt. Mohinder Kaur, mother of the deceased was 58 years of age at the time of accident. This life expectancy in this part of the Country is 70 years. A full Bench of this Court in Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1 had observed that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned. For the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the actual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier.

In the instant case, Smt. Mohinder Kaur, mother of the deceased was 58 years of age. Following the ratio of Lachman Singh''s case (supra), I am of the considered view that multiplier of 12 will be suitable multiplier. By applying the multiplier of 12, the total compensation to which the claimant would be entitled to comes to Rs. 96,000/-. She is also allowed 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

This appeal is partly allowed and the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

The appeal having been partly allowed, the cross-objections are dismissed. No costs.