Nirmal Singh and Another vs Gurcharan Kaur and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—This order will dispose of the appeal referred to above as also F.A.O. No. 301 of 1976 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Gurcharan Kaur and Ors. Both these appeals arose from the same accident and were consequently heard together.

The accident in this case took place on May 26, 1972 at about 10 a.m. on the Malerkotla Ludhiana road near bus stand Kupkalan. Sher Singh, deceased, a mason, aged about 24 years was carrying milk on his cycle when a truck came from behind and hit into him. It was as a result thereof that due to the injuries suffered by him in this accident, he later died.

The claimants in this case are Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur, widow of the deceased and their two minor children, a daughter Pali and a son Bhinder as also Mrs. Bachan Kaur, the mother of the deceased.

On the finding of the Tribunal, that accident in this case had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of Chhota Singh, the driver of truck No. PUP-4085, a sum of Rs. 54,000/- was awarded to the claimants as compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased and Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and for loss of love and affection.

In appeal an attempt was made to assail the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence of the driver of the truck No. PUP-4085. The circumstances of the case and the material on record warrant no interference with this finding. The only eye witness to this occurrence was Pritam Singh (PW6). It was his testimony that Sher Singh, deceased, was travelling on the cycle on the kacha portion of the road and off the metalled portion of the road on the left side, when the truck came from behind and hit into him. This Pritam Singh (PW6) was not shown to be in any manner interested in the deceased or the claimants to provide any motive for him to falsely depose in their favour. It was his testimony that after the accident, he took the deceased to the hospital in a bus which came there soon after the accident and he then reported the matter to the police. It was on his statement that the First Information Report was recorded. He later joined in the investigation of the case. The cross-examination of this witness also provides no ground to in any manner doubt his testimony.

It is significant to note that Chhota Singh Respondent did not come into the witness box and nor for that matter was Karnail Singh examined by the Respondents. This Karnail Singh being the person, who according to Nirmal Singh Respondent, the owner of the truck, was the driver thereof at the relevant time. This becomes all the more significant when regard is had to the fact that the plea of the Respondents was that Chhota Singh was not the driver of the truck at the time of the accident and further that the deceased had been run over by some other truck which was going ahead of truck No. PUP-4085.

According to Mr. Mahesh Grover counsel for Respondents truck No. PUP-4085 had stopped after the deceased had been hit by another truck purely as a humanitarian gesture. If this was so, there is no explanation to account for the fact that the driver thereof ran away immediately after the accident. It has come in evidence that Chhota Singh had runaway after the accident. If indeed the truck driver was blameless for this accident and he had stopped merely to help the injured, it is to be expected that he would either take the injured to the hospital or at any rate be with him until other help came. The running away of the driver of the truck is clearly inconsistent with any such motive in his mind at the time of his stopping the truck.

The other noteworthy feature is the fact that the truck No. PUP 4085 went and hit into a culvert and was found standing against it in the photographs taken in this case. This was sought to be attributed to the sudden application of the brakes by the truck driver on seeing the accident. This assertion is patently contrary to what was stated by the Respondents in their written statement, namely that the accident had taken place about one furlong ahead of the truck. If this was so there was no occasion for any sudden application of brakes. There was ample time and distance available for the truck to stop in normal course. In these circumstances the Tribunal rightly held the accident to have been caused by Chhota Singh, the driver of the truck PUP-4085 and that it had taken place entirely due to his rash and negligent driving.

The real challenge in this case was to the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants. It is now well settled that no amount can be awarded for mental agony or for the loss of love and affection on account of the death of the deceased. The basis on which the Tribunal computed the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants cannot be upheld in view of the Full Bench decision of our High Court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 A.C.J. 170 (P. and H.) where it was laid down that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the deceased and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. It was further observed that the suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependants, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of the remarriage of the widow, the coming up of the age of the dependants and their developing independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned.

In Asha Rani and Ors. v. Union of India 1983 A.C.J. 52 (P. and H.) it was held that the normal multiplier in such cases is 16.

It is, thus on the principles as set out in the two authorities referred to above that the compensation payable to the claimants in the present case has to be assessed.

The evidence on record shows that, Sher Singh, deceased was about 24 years of age at the time of his death and his occupation was that of a mason. It is further in evidence that his earnings as a mason were at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. On this basis his monthly income would work out to be Rs. 450/- per month. By the very nature of his employment, however, it cannot be accepted that he would remain employed all the year round. Some allowance has thus obviously to be made for his remaining unemployed for some period during the year and at the same time an allowance has also to be made for the amount which the deceased must undoubtedly have been spending upon himself. Keeping these factors in view as also the principles laid down in the two authorities referred to above, it is reasonable to hold that the loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased was at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The suitable multiplier in the present case must be taken to be 16 keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the claimants, Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur, the widow of the deceased being only 21 years of age and their two children Pali aged 6 and Bhinder aged 4. Mrs. Bachan Kaur, the mother was 50 years of age. On this basis the compensation that the claimants must be held entitled to works out to be Rs. 57,600/- . The compensation payable to the claimants is thus reduced to this amount. The claimants shall, however, also be entitled to interest on the amount awarded, that is, Rs. 57,600/- at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- each shall be payable to the daughter Pali and the son Bhinder and Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant Mrs. Bachan Kaur. The balance of the amount shall be payable to the widow Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur. It is however, clarified that the liability of the Respondent insurance company for the amount awarded shall be limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- . The liability of the other Respondents shall, however, extend to the entire amount awarded.

In view of the above, both these appeals are accepted to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.