Kehar Singh Ganda and Others vs Kamaljit Singh and Another

S.S. Sodhl, J.—The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimants being the husband and son of Harminder Kaur who was killed in an accident between a scooter and a scooter-rikshaw. This happened on July 4, 1980 in Sector 15, Chandigarh. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been cause entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter-rikshaw CHV-1196. A sum of Rs. 28,800/-was awarded as compensation to the claimant.

Harminder Kaur deceased was about 29 years of age at the then of her death. She was employed as a clerk in the Punjab Treasury at Chandigarh. She was, at that time drawing a salary of over Rs. 570/- per month. It has come in the evidence of PW 4 Jaswant Singh of the Punjab Treasury, Chandigarh that had she lived, Harminder Kaur could have been promoted as Senior-Clerk and would thereby have got into a higher scale of pay. The testimony of the claimant PW 5 Kehar Singh Ganda would show that his wife Harminder Kaur deceased used to contribute her entire salary towards the ruining of the household. Kehar Singh Ganda himself was employed as a clerk with the State Bank of Patiala at Rajpyra at a salary of Rs. 800/-per month. The other claimant their son Gursharn Singh was about two years old when his mother died.

The pecuniary loss accruing to the husband or the children, on the death of the wife of mother, as the case may be can arise under one or more of the various heads as catalogued in Kemp and Kemp on "Quantum of Damages." Volume 1 these being:

Loss of wife''s contribution to his household from her own earnings.

Expenses of employing which a housekeeper of servant to perform services which the wife had rendered gratuitously.

Expenses of providing boarding and lodging for such housekeeper or servant.

Additional expenses caused by having the household run by house-keeper or servant instead of the wife.

Expense of furnishing the room and providing requisite amenities for the house-keeper or servant.

Expense of sending children away to boarding school.

Expense of buying children''s clothes instead of having them made by wife.

Expense of having his own clothes etc. mended by wife.

Having to eat meals out instead of having them cooked by the wife.

Loss of element of security where husband employment was insecure of his health bad, and where wife had been accustomed to got out to work to keep the home going when the husband was not working.

It will be seen, therefore, that the compensation payable to the husband and the children has to be assessed not only with reference to the earnings of the deceased housewife, but also for the other service of provided by her in the household, even though rendered gratuitously. Each case has, however, to be considered in the context of his its own set of facts as they emerge from the material on record. In the present case, as has been shown above, the deceased was earning over Rs. 570/- per month, which she contributed towards meeting the expenses of the household. Some part of the her earnings were undoubtedly spent by her on the expenses of the household for the benefit of not only herself but also her husband service which she provided or could be experted to have provided to her husband and son as listed out in kemp and kemp, on ''Quantum of Damages''s (supra). Taking an over-all view of the circumstances of the claimant as and the deceased, in the context also of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR 1, ''16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied. The loss deserves to be assessed at around Rs. 500/- per month. This would work out to Rs. 96,000/- which may be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only).

The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- which they shall be entitled to in equal shares. The claimants shall be entitled to the amount awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. The amount payable to the minor claimant shall be paid to him in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in his best interest.

The respondent shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded. The liability of the respondent Insurance Company shall, however, be limited to Rs. 50,000/-.

This appeal is consequently accepted. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.