Parbhati Lal and Others vs Bhagwant Singh and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimants Parbhati Lal and Smt. Basanti are the parents of Bhoop Singh deceased, Whereas Nirmala Devi is the sister of the deceased.

Bhoop Singh aged 26 years died in a motor vehicle accident on December 28, 1984 at about 6.15 P.M. near Bus Stand of Village Bachhod at Narnaul, Rewari Road. The appellants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lacs on, allegations that the deceased was earning Rs. 750/- per month and had good future prospects and that the claimants were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. It Was also alleged; that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of truck No HRM 828. The claim was contested by the respondents. The learned Motor Accident Claims. Tribunal returned a finding that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid truck and that the appellant were proved to be the parents and sister of deceased. Bhoop Singh, Learned Tribunal, in the circumstances awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to all the claimants as this was the amount which was just and proper. Dis-satisfied with the grant of compensation awarded the appellants filed the present appeal.

No appeal of cross-objections have been filed to challenge the findings of negligence recorded, against the truck driver and thus in the circumstances of this case, the only claim at the instance of the appellants is for enhancement of the compensation.

Turning now to the amount of compensation payable to the claimants, the record shows that the appellants, Parbhati Lal and Basanti, parents of Bhoop Singh, deceased are old and aged about 60 years, whereas Nirmala Devi, sister of the deceased is aged about 15 years. Bhoop Singh, according to the claimants was employed in a factory, but this fact could not be substantiated. It was, however, accepted that the deceased was earning about Rs. 750/- per month even as a labourer. The age of the deceased was found to be 26/27 years. It has also come on record that Bhoop Singh, was living away from his parents while working and was residing in a rented accommodation It is a matter of common knowledge that Bhoop Singh who was working as a labourer and was a bachelor must be helping his parents and sister and they were obviously dependent on him. He must be parting with a substantial amount of his earnings to support his aged parents. There is no evidence to rebut the (sic) facts available on record. While assuming that the deceased must be helping his parents in a substantial way, it must be borne in mind that if the deceased had lived, he would in due course of time, have got married and raised a family and that would have emphasised its own financial constraints upon him, reducing thereby the amount that would have been available to him for his parents and sister. His sister would have also, in due course of time, got married and settled in the family of her husband. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and taking into consideration all factors related to the determination of compensation, I am of the view that a grant of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in all respects would be just, fair and proper. In the circumstances, I award the claimants a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by modifying the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellants, are, thus held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are jointly and severally liable. As a sum of Rs. 20,0)0/- has already been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellants would thus be entitled to another sum of Rs. 30,000/-. This amount of Rs. 30,000/- would be over and above of the amount granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of the claim-petition i.e. 4-2-1985 till the date of payment.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted in the above terms. Since the parties are hot represented by a counsel at the time of heading, there will be no order as to costs.