Kundan Singh and Others vs Jita Singh and Others

Ashok Bhan, J.—Tara Singh son of Jita Singh was murdered by the defendant-appellants on 29.7.1986. The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge and the Conviction was maintained by this Court in appeal. Plaintiff respondents, that is Jita Singh ''father, Nihal Kaur ''mother'', Gurmit Kaur ''wife'', Jagsir Singh ''son'' and Kartar Kaur sister of Tara Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as damage on account of murder of Tara Singh. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff''s suit for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within the meaning of Section 50 of the Evidence Act by believing the evidence of conduct that they were not mother and wife respectively of Tara Singh deceased and, therefore, no portion of compensation was granted in their favour. Jagsir Singh born posthumously was held to be the son of Tara Singh deceased.

Defendants filed R.F.A. No. 61 of 1972 praying for, acceptance of appeal and dismissal of the suit in to and the plaintiff-respondents filed R.F.A. No. 63 of 1972, Claiming enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a single order. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellants (R.F.A. No. 61 of 1972 was dismissed whereas the appeal filed by he plaintiff respondents (R.F.A. No. 63 of 1972) was accepted and the compensation was increased to Rs. 50,000/- Defendants have filed the present letters patent appeal against the aforementioned judgment of the learned Single Judge enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 50.000/-

It has been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the trial court under issue No. 1 had found that Jagir Singh had been proved to be the son of deceased Tara Singh whereas Nihal Kaur and Gurmit Kaur has failed to prove their relationship with the deceased as his mother and wife respectively; that the learned Single Judge without reversing this finding has ordered the payment of compensation to Gurmit Kaur as well along with Jagsir Singh minor son. The contention is that Nihal Kaur and Gurmit Kaur could not be given any compensation as they had not ben proved to be the mother and wife respectively of Tara Singh deceased. We do not find any substance in this submission. The grievance regarding disbursement of compensation to Gurmit Kaur and Nihar Kaur could be made by Jagsir Singh, the son the Tara Singh and he has not chosen to file any appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and no fault can be found with this finding as the learned Single Judge has taken he dependency to be Rs. 300/- per month only. The deceased being 21 years of age, the multiplier of 16 was applied, thus determining the total dependency to Rs. 50,000/-. If Smt. Gurmit Kaur or Nihal Kaur could not get this amount, then the son Jagsir Singh and Jita Singh-father could be entitled to the same amount as the loss of Rs. 50,000/- has to be determined as a loss to the estate of the deceased to which his legal representatives would be entitled to succeed irrespective of the fact as to whether they are one or more. Jagsir Singh at the relevant time did not filed any appeal against the order of the learned Single, Judge, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Single Bench allowing the amount of compensation in favour of Jagsir Singh and his mother Murmit Kaur along with other claimants. The rights of the defendant--appellants are not affected as the compensation payable by them remains to be the same.

No other point was urged.

For the reasons recorded above, we uphold the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.