Raj alias Rajinder Parkash vs Bhagwan Kaur and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy sought to be raised in appeal here was with regard to the ownership of the car involved in the accident.

On May IS, 1977, at about 7 a.m., Natha Singh, while returning to his village, was run over and killed by the car PNC 3671. It was the finding of the Tribunal that this accident had been caused entirely due to the rath and negligent driving of Madanjit Singh, the driver of the offending car. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, they being the widow and children of Natha Singh deceased. Liability for the amount awarded was fastened upon the car driver Madanjit Singh as also the Appellant Raj alias Rajinder Parkash, who was held to be the owner of the car. It is this finding which is now sought to be challenged in appeal.

A reference to the material on record would show that in the claim application, the claimants mentioned both the Appellant and one Yogesh Kumar as being the owners of the car involved in the accident. In his written statement, the Appellant Raj denied that he was the owner of the car at the time of the accident while Yogesh Kumar took the plea that he had sold this car to the Appellant on May, 13, 1977. As for the car driver Madanjit Singh, his was a plea of denial simpliciter.

The evidence regarding the ownership of the car involved in the accident consists of the testimony of R.W. 2 Yogesh Kumar, who deposed that he had sold the car to the Appellant on May 13, 1977, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. He also deposed that Madanjit Singh was the driver of the Appellant R.W. 1, Baldev Singh, Advocate, corroborated the testimony of Yogesh Kumar regarding the sale of the car on that day to the Appellant and also proved the affidavit Exhibit D.W. 1/A, which was sworn by the Appellant on March 25, 1979, wherein it was stated that he had purchased this car on May 13, 1977.

It is significant to note that the Appellant did not come into the witness box to rebut the testimony of Yogesh Kumar or Baldev Singh, Advocate, or even to state as per his plea in the written statement that he was not the owner of the car at the time of the accident. Madanjit Singh, the driver of the car, was also not examined. In this situation, no exception can indeed be taken to the rinding of the Tribunal that the owner of the car when the accident occurred was the Appellant Raj and he was, therefore, rightly held liable along with the car driver for the compensation awarded.

The claimants, on their part, filed cross-objections seeking enhanced compensation Natha Singh deceased was about 35 years of age at the time of his death. He was an agriculturist. The claimants here are his widow Bhagwan Kaur who was 30 years old and six minor children, four sons and two daughters. According to the claimants, the income of the deceased was Rs. 500/- per month. Even allowing for some exaggeration here, considering the number of dependants that the deceased had to look after the normal earnings of agricultural labourers, it would be fair and just to assess the dependency here at around Rs. 3,500/- per annum. 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 56,000/- .

The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 56,000/-, which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each shall be payable to the children of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The amount payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest. Madanjit Singh, the car driver, the Appellant Raj alias Rajinder Parkash shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

In the result, the cross objections filed by the claimants are hereby accepted while the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- .