Raj Dulari vs Jaswant Singh

Navita Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. This present appeal is filed against the award dated 10.9.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal for short), Ludhiana, whereby compensation of Rs. 13,000/- was granted to the appellants on account of death of Satish Kumar. They have come up in appeal for enhancement of the amount.

The brief facts of the case are that on 7.2.1997, Sunit Rani, Kailash Rani and Rita alias Rano, residents of Chaudhary Colony, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana, were present at Cheema Chowk on the auto stand. They were talking with Satish Kumar, who was sitting in three-wheeler bearing No. PB-08M-9609. One Ranjit Singh was also present there with his three-wheeler No. PIL-3497. A truck bearing No. PAT-5992 came from the side of Dholewal over-bridge, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Ranjit Singh, on seeing the truck coming towards him, immediately jumped aside. Rita also ran to save herself. The truck rammed into three-wheeler No. PIL-3497 and then struck the other three-wheeler as well. Satish Kumar and Sunita Rani, who were standing there, were crushed and died at the spot. The truck was being driven by Jaswant Singh-respondent No. 1, who fled from the spot. Ranjit Singh lodged a complaint with the police. Satish Kumar was stated to be 22 years old having an income of Rs. 7500/- per month.

Respondents No. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed a joint reply denying the accident as also the age and income of the deceased. Respondent No. 3, with whom the vehicle was insured, filed a separate reply alleging that the Company was not liable in any manner as the truck was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also stated that the insurers of three-wheelers were necessary parties. It was specifically pleaded that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence and as such the insurer was not liable.

Rejoinder was filed in which the appellants repudiated the averments of the respondents and reiterated the ones made in the petition.

The following issues were framed by the Tribunal: -

Whether Satish Kumar died in accident caused by the respondent No. 1 by driving track No. PAT-5992 rashly and negligently? OPA

To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPA

Relief.

It is wrongly mentioned in the petition that Satish Kumar was husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 3 and 4. Actually the deceased was un-married and appellants No. 1 and 2 are his parents and other two appellants are the brothers. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that according to the witnesses, Satish Kumar was earning Rs. 250-300/- every day, but from material on record it was clear that if an auto rickshaw was given to some other person on rent, the income would be Rs. 150/- per day. On that analogy, the Tribunal held that the income of Satish Kumar, who was plying the auto rickshaw, owned by his father, would be Rs. 100/- daily and taking out 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses, remaining income of Rs. 2,000/- per month was taken as the base for calculating the compensation. Appellants No. 3 and 4 were not granted any compensation being the brothers of the deceased, who were not dependent on him. Only the parents were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the claim now is only with regard to enhancement of the compensation as the income had been wrongly calculated by the Tribunal and nothing was granted towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. He contended that there was no objection to the finding of the Tribunal that the brothers of the deceased were not entitled to any compensation and also regarding the multiplier applied. He argued that the Tribunal despite saying that if an auto rickshaw was given on hire, it would fetch Rs. 150/- per day, still held the income of the deceased Rs. 100/- daily.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company very fairly conceded that there is self contradiction in the calculation of the Tribunal on that count. Since it was observed by the Tribunal that according to the statement of Kishan Chand, father of the deceased, who was also the owner of the three-wheeler, that if the vehicle was given on rent, the income would be Rs. 150/- per day, it is not understandable as to how the income of Satish Kumar was taken to be Rs. 100/- per day when he was plying the auto rickshaw himself. Income from rent is rather fixed, while income by driving oneself could be much more on certain days. In such circumstances, the contention on behalf of the appellants that the income of Satish Kumar should have been taken to be at least Rs. 150/- per day i.e. Rs. 4,500/- per month is quite reasonable and acceptable.

In the light of the discussion made above, it is held that income of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd out of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased as he was unmarried and his parents are the persons entitled to the compensation, being part of his family. The annual income for the purpose of calculating compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 36,000/- and applying the same multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, which is not challenged by the appellants, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- is also awarded towards funeral and last rites expenses. The total compensation, therefore, is calculated at Rs. 2,40,000/-. The interest shall remain the same as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 2,40,000/- with the same interest as mentioned above.