Phool Mati vs Jai Singh and Others

B.S. Dhillon, J.—Raj Kumar, a boy aged 15 years, died during the course of an accident on 9.1.1970 at 10.00 a.m. while he was proceeding from the side of Nishat Cinema, Ambala Cantt., towards Hazara Singh bridge situated on the Durga Charan Road, Ambala Cantt. An oil tanker No. HRA-1314 driven by Jai Singh (Respondent No. 1) was alleged to be driven at a fast speed and due to the negligence of the driver the death of the deceased was caused. Mrs. Phool Mati, mother of the deceased boy, filed a claim application which was resisted on behalf of the Respondent.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the deceased Raj Kumar died as a result of rash and negligent driving of tank lorry No. HRA-1314 by Respondent No. 1 resulting in an accident on 9.1.1970 at Ambala Cantt?

Whether the deceased Raj Kumar was guilty of contributory negligence in the alleged accident? If so, to what effect?

Whether the petition is barred by time as against any of the Respondents?

To what amount, if any, is the Petitioner entitled as compensation and from whom?

Relief.

Issue No. 1 was found in favour of the Petitioner and issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the Respondents. Under issue No. 4, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) came to the conclusion that, had the deceased remained alive, he would have contributed a sum of Rs. 600/- per annum for a period of 21 years to his mother and after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of lump sum payment, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,500/- to the Appellant which was payable by the Respondents.

The Respondents had not challenged the findings on issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as no appeal was filed nor there is any cross-objection. The finding of the Tribunal on these issues are, therefore, affirmed.

The only point to be determined is the quantum of compensation. It is no doubt true that the deceased was not employed at the time of his death and was a student of 6th class, but the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that within three to four years when he would have attained the age of 19 to 20 years, he being an able bodied person, would have earned to maintain himself and also he would have contributed towards the maintenance of his widowed mother. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that even as a labourer, he would have earned to the extent of Rs. 100/- or Rs. 120/- per month. This finding appears to be erroneous as it is a matter of common knowledge that even a labourer in these days gets wages beyond Rs. 8/- per day. It has been rightly found by the Tribunal that the deceased was an able bodied person. Even if he be taken to have not pursued his studies, as a labourer he would have certainly earned daily wages of Rs. 8/- per day or even more than this. Therefore, calculated on this basis, he had the capacity to earn, in any case, Rs. 200/- per month. The Tribunal fell in error in assessing his earnings at Rs. 100/- or Rs. 120/- per month. It is also to be kept in mind that after he had become major, if he had married, his liability would have also therefore, been towards his wife and children. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, in my view, he would have certainly contributed a sum of Rs. 75/- per month for the maintenance of his widowed mother. Calculated at this rate, the total amount for the period of 21 years would come to Rs. 18,900/- deducting a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of lump sum payment, the Appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,900/- from the Respondents as compensation.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.