Sardar Kaur vs Mohinder Singh

G.S. Singhvi, J.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby he enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani from Rs. 12,600/ to Rs. 25,200/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the claimantappellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that Shri Brij Raj Singh, son of the appellant was killed in a road accident which took place on 20.8.1980 near PWD Rest House, Hansi Road, Bhiwani. At the time of death, Brij Raj Singh was unmarried and was employed as A.D.M. in the Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 711.80. The appellant filed a claim petition for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/. The driver of the truck No. HYD195 which was involved in the accident, the insurer i.e. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and the owner of the truck filed written statements and contested the claimant''s plea about the manner in which the accident had taken place. They also questioned the locus standi of the claimant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues :

(1) Whether accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicles Nos. HYA8379 by respondent No. 5 and HYD195 by respondent No. 6 ?

(2) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled, if so from whom ?

(3) Whether the petition is barred by time ?

(4) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition ?

(5) Whether the petition is the result of collusion between respondents No. 1 to 5 with petitioner; if so, to what effect ?

(6) Whether respondents are not liable to pay any compensation as alleged ?

(7) Relief.

After recording evidence of the parties and analysing the same, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, Mohinder Singh. The Tribunal further held that the age of the deceased can be taken as 28 years and that of the claimant as 60 years. It also noticed that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 711.80 and he was getting Rs. 593.80 after deductions towards C.T.D., E.P.F., F.P.F. and security etc. However, it did not accept the claimant''s version that the deceased was contributing Rs. 400/ per month for the maintenance of his mother. It held that the deceased would have contributed at least Rs. 150/ per month i.e. Rs. 1,800/ per annum for support and maintenance of his mother. To this, Tribunal applied multiplier of ''7'' and awarded Rs. 12,600/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

In the appeal filed by the claimant, the learned Single Judge held :

"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on record. The claimant did not appear herself. Shri N.S. Nirbhey appeared as AW2 being her general attorney, who is her son inlaw. He has stated that the deceased has four sisters and two brothers who were married at the time of his death. According to him, the deceased had told him that his mother was taking Rs. 400/ per month from him. She used to spend this money on herself and her unmarried daughters. In view of this evidence, the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was contributing only Rs. 150/ per month to his mother out of his salary for her support and maintenance. It seems that the deceased was unmarried and his father had already died. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that at least he was paying Rs. 300/ per month to his mother for her support as she was also to maintain one unmarried daughter. If it is held that he was contributing Rs. 300/ per month out of the salary, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 3,600/. As regards the multiplier, I do not find any justification for differing with the Tribunal in this respect as the age of the mother, the claimant, has been found to be 60 years. Thus, if the multiplier of seven is applied to the annual dependency of Rs. 3,600/, the total amount comes to Rs. 25,200/. Moreover, the Tribunal allowed interest @ 6% p.a. whereas the claimant would be entitled to it @ 12% p.a. Consequently, the appeal succeeds, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 12,600/ to Rs. 25,200/ with interest @ 12% p.a. instead of @ 6% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. However, there will be no order as to costs."

In the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has sought further enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has erred in fixing Rs. 300/ per month as contribution of the deceased towards his family and there is no justification to apply the multiplier of ''7'' because the normal life span is 75 years.

We have heard Shri Ajay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K.S. Malik, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 7 and in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The evidence produced by the claimant before the Tribunal clearly shows that the deceased was contributing Rs. 400/ per month to his family by which the claimant was maintaining herself and her unmarried daughter. On their part, the respondents did not produce any evidence to rebut the testimony of Shri Niranjan Singh Nirbhey who had appeared on behalf of the claimant. No doubt, the deceased would have married and he would have contributed a substantial amount for maintaining his wife and children, but it can also not be ignored that his pay would have increased with the passage of time. He would have earned promotion. That would have added to the increase in his total emoluments. Therefore, in substance, his contribution towards the family would have not been less than Rs. 400/ per month. The learned Single Judge has not directed his attention towards this aspect of the matter when he recorded the finding that the contribution of the deceased to the family can be taken as Rs. 300/ per month only. We are also of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in applying the multiplier of ''7'' only. The oral evidence produced by the appellant shows that her age was described as 50 to 55 years. However, on the basis of the affidavit furnished by her in the course of proceedings before it, the Tribunal assessed her age to be 60 years. Fortunately, the appellant is still alive. This shows that she has in fact lived for a period of over 16 years after the death her son. Even after the date of award i.e. 30.5.1983 she has lived for more than 14 years. Thus, it is just and proper to apply multiplier of ''10'' instead of ''7''.

On the basis of the above conclusion, we allow the appeal and modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge by directing that the total dependency of the appellant should be treated as Rs. 4,800/ per year and multiplier of ''10'' deserves to be applied instead of ''7'' as has been done by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the appellant is held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 40,000/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application. We have awarded the compensation notwithstanding the appellant''s plea for enhancement upto Rs. 40,000/ because it is the duty of the court to award appropriate compensation and lack of appropriate prayer cannot be a ground to deny desired relief to the litigant.