Mrs. Birinder Kaur Manshahia and another vs The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others

S.S. Soodhi, J.—The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimant being Birinder Kaur Manshahia mother of the deceased Harpreet Singh, who was killed when his motor cycle was involved in an accident with a truck belonging to the Haryana Urban Development Authority. This happened at the Majri Crossing on the Ambala-Kalka Road on November 12, 1981. Holding rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver to be the cause of the accident, the Tribunal awarded a turn of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimant.

No appeal or cross-objections have been filed to challenge the finding of negligence recorded against the truck-driver. There was, however, an attempt on the part of Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, counsel for the Haryana Urban Development Authority to put-forth the plea of limitation against the claimants, in so far as this Respondent was concerned on the ground that the Haryana Urban Development had been impleaded as a party after the period of limitation for the filing of the claim application, had expired. This is indeed a contention devoid of merit The record would show that no such objection was pressed before the Tribunal and at any rate, once it was impleaded as a party, it will be deemed that it was impleaded with effect from the date of the claim application which was admittedly filed with in time.

Turning now to the quantum of campensation payable to the claimant, the record shows that the mother-Birinder Kaur Manshahia was about 45 years of age when her son-Harpreet Singh was killed in this accident and further that her circumstances were such that had he lived she would have been dependent upon him. Harpreet Singh deceased was only 22 years of age when he died. There is ample evidence to show that he was both a good student and a sports man. After graduation, he was studying Law at the Punjabi University Patiala. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that he bad good prospects for gainful employment, whether in the legal profession or in some other filed. He would have completed his Law studies in another year or so and in all likelihood would have started earning too by another two years.

There are no doubt many impounderable factors that emerge in a case like the present, where before the deceased could actually take up gainful employment an assessment has to be made of what his earnings could have been. The circumstances of the family and the status and achievements of the deceased would undoubtedly be relevant yardsticks for assessing his likely earnings. In the case of Harpreet Singh, there is the statement of claimant P. W. 5, Varinder Kaur to the effect that keeping in view the attainments of the deceased in sports and studies, there was the prospect of his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the present case, it would, at any rate, be reasonable to assume that had the deceased lived, he would soon have been earning Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1500/- per month, which in the years to come would have increased too. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that if the deceased had lived, he would in due course have got married and raised a family and that would have imposed its own financial constraints upon him, reducing thereby the amount that would have been available to him for his mother''s maintenance and support. Keeping in view these aspects and also and generally the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v; Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1, it would be reasonable to assess financial loss for the mother at about Rs 500/- per month with a multiplier of ''16''. So computed, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 96,000/- which may be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

5 The compensation payable to the mother Barinder Kaur Manshahia is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,10,000/- which she shall be entitled to alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 11 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Respondents 1 and 3 shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

This appeal is thus accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.