Mohan Singh and another vs Smt. Niamti Bai and others

A.D. Koshal, J.—The circumstances leading to this first appeal from the order dated the 28th of March, 1972, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hissar are these. On the 1st of January, 1969, at 7or 8 P. M , Tulsi Ram, a youngman of 23 years, was driving his mule-cart on the Hissar-Barwala road at a distance of about 12 kilometers from Hissar when truck No. HRR 6915 rammed into the mule-cart with the result that the mule was killed at the spot iand Tulsi Ram sustained serious injuries. Sometime later he was removed in a bus to a hospital at Hissar where he breathed his last at 12.15 P.M. on the 2nd of February, 1969. We was a bachelor and was living jointly with his mother Niamti Bai Respondent No. 1 and his father Nota Ram Respondent No. 2, the two of whom made an application u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- from the owner of the truck named Mohan Singh who is now Appellant No. 1, the driver of the truck named Jang Singh (Respondent No. 3) and the Orient 1 Fire & General Insurance Company, Limited (Appellant No. 2 with whom the truck was issued.

The Tribunal found that Tulsi Ram died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Jang Singh Respondent No. 3. It further found that at the time of his death Tulsi Ram was earning not less than Rs. 1,00/- per month out of which he was spending something in the neighbourhood of Rs. 70/- on his parents. Assuming that he would have survived for another 37 years if he had not been knocked down by the truck, it worked out the loss of the parents due to the death of their son at Rs. 31,080/- (i. e. Rs. 840/- per annum for 37 years). On account of the fact that the compensation was to be assessed in the form of a lump sum, it applied a cut of 20 per cent to the figure last mentioned and worked out the compensation at Rs. 24,864/- which it awarded to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the impugned order to the date of realisation.

The only point urged by Mr. Gandhi in support of the appeal is that the compensation awarded to the parents of Tulsi Ram should not have exceeded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and in support thereof he contends that Shrimati Niamti, the mother of Tulsi Ram deceased expired shortly after the impugned order was made and Nota Ram Respondent was 60 years of age when his deposition was recorded by the Tribunal and that it was the expectancy of life of Nota Ram which should have been taken into consideration for awarding compensation and not the estimated future life of Tuli Ram alone. The point is one of substance. Although Tulsi Ram could have been expected to live for 37 years, may, even more, his parents could get compensation only for benefits of which they were deprived by their son''s death. Those benefits could not extend beyond their own life expectancy. It is admitted that Shrimati Niamti is no more and that at the time when his deposition was recorded in the lower Court Nota Ram was (sic) years of age. The normal life expectancy in India has been held to be round about 70 years in quite a few cases vide Mrs. Savitri Devi v. Malerkotla Bus Service (P) Ltd. 1969 PLR 306 Jaswant Kaur and Others Vs. Ratti Ram and Others, and nothing has been brought to my notice to persuade me to depart from that or form a different opinion. This means that Nota Ram could claim compensation for benefits which he would have derived from his son over a period of 10 years. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is amended accordingly.

As already stated, the Tribunal has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per mensem but I do not think that this rate is fair to the parents. It is admitted on all hands that Tulsi-Ram worked as a mule-cart driver. It is the case of the parents that he owned the cart and that his daily earnings were more that Rs 15/-. Evidence on that point is, however, conflicting. But even if it be taken for granted that he was driving a cart for another, he cannot be said to be earning less than Rs, 150/- per month and to the adoption of this figure for the monthly income of the deceased. Mr. Gandhi has no serious objection. The deceased was living jointly with his parents and it would be reason-able to infer that he was spending about two-thirds of his income on them and the other one-third on himself. I thus regard Rs. 100/- per month as a fair rate of compensation. The total comepensation for a period of 10 years works out to Rs. 12,000/- which I would slash by one sixth to make allowance for the fact that it is to be awarded on lumpsum basis. The balance would be Rs. 10,000/- and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to that figure. The father, however would also be entitled on the compensation awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the impugned order to the date of realisation.

In the result, the appeal is accepted in part as stated above but with no order as to costs.