Ram Singh and Others vs Joginder Singh and Others

Viney Mittal, J.—This order shall dispose of two appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 1097 of 1995 and 1131 of 1995. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the claimants and have arisen out of a common award dated 1st September, 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, ''the Tribunal'').

An accident had occurred on 15th April, 1992. Three persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh Rajbir Singh and Ganga Kumari were travelling on a motor-cycle. They were hit by a truck No. HR 05/7885 which was coming from the opposite direction. Kuldeep Singh and Rajbir Singh both aged 20 years, died at the spot. Two claim petitions were filed by the parents, brothers and sisters respectively of the deceased. It was claimed by them that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Consequently, they claimed compensation.

The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the assessment of the evidence available on the record, held that the driver of the offending truck was indeed rash and negligent in his driving. Consequently, the respondents i.e., owner, driver and Insurance Company were held liable to pay compensation. The quantum of compensation was assessed of Rs. 70,000 each along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the death of Kuldeep Singh and Rajbir Singh.

The claimants have remained dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

I have heard Mr. Kunal Pawar, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and Mr. Suman Jain, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

The facts which emerge from the record show that the deceased Kuldeep Singh and Rajbir Singh were both aged 20 years. It was claimed by the claimants that they were working with Angad Spinners Pvt. Ltd. However, no evidence was led by the claimants in this regard. The learned Tribunal, in these circumstances, presumed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000 per month being able bodied young men. It was also noticed that the deceased were to marry soon and after that their contributions towards the family would decrease substantially. Multiplier of 16 was applied in the case. Consequently, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 70,000 in each case.

From the perusal of the record, I do not find that the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal is inadequate in any manner. There is no material on the record to hold that the claimants were entitled to any higher compensation. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present two appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.