Sher Singh alias Shera and Another vs Mukand Lal and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—This judgment will also dispose of the cress appeal F.A.O. No. 5/1976 Mukand Lal and Anr. v. Sher Singh and Ors. Both these appeals are in respect of the same accident and were consequently taken up for hearing together.

On 24.11.1970 an accident took place on the Sangrur-Patiala road between jeep No. PUL 4319 and truck No. PUL 1305 as a result of which both the jeep and the truck over-turned. Gian Chand, the driver of the jeep, received injuries as a result of which he died- An application for compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the parents and brothers of Gian Chand deceased seeking Rs. 2,05,000/- as damages for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased.

According to the claimants Gian Chand deceased was driving the jeep when the truck came from behind and dashed into it from the rear side whereby the jeep was pushed aside and the deceased received injuries and died at the spot. The Respondents, on the other hand, blamed the deceased for the accident by putting forth a plea that the accident had taken place due to his rash and negligent driving.

The Tribunal came to the finding that the accident in this case had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The Respondents were consequently held liable to pay compensation. The brothers of the deceased were, however, not held to be entitled to any compensation. It was held that it was only the parents of the deceased namely Mukand Lal and Maya Devi who were entitled to compensation. The total amount of compensation payable to them was assessed to be Rs 12,000/-. An amount of Rs. 1,500/- had been received by the claimants Maya Devi from the truck driver Sher Singh out of the fine imposed upon him in the criminal case arising from this accident. Deducting this amount from the said sum of Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- was awarded to Mukand Lal and Rs. 4,500/- to Maya Devi as compensation.

There is no challenge to the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence. The controversy in these appeals is only with regard to the amounts awarded as compensation.

It was the contention of the counsel for the claimants Mukand Lal and Maya Devi that the amount awarded was inadequate having regard to the ages of the claimants and the deceased and the amount that the deceased used to provide to the claimants for their maintenance.

The evidence on record show that Gian Chand deceased was running a tent business which provided him an income of Rs. 400/- per month. This was deposed to by the claimant Mukand Lal in his testimony as PW 10 as also PW 8 Madan Lal, the brother of the deceased. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- per month making an allowance for some exaggeration in this behalf on the part of the claimants. This is not open to question in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to corroborate the oral testimony of the claimants with regard to this matter. The record further shows that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been invested by the deceased in his business and after making an allowance for this investment, the personal income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 200/- per month out of which the loss to the parents was held to be Rs. 100/- per month. Counsel for the claimants could point to no flaw in this conclusion of the Tribunal.

It is also pertinent to note that Mukand Lal was found by the Tribunal to be 55 years of age and his wife Maya Devi 50 years despite the fact that both Mukand Lal and Maya Devi while giving their particulars when entering into the witness box gave their age to be 60 years. In this state of the evidence no exception can be taken to the award of the Tribunal holding the claimants entitled to Rs. 6,000/- each as compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased. Rs. 1,500/-, as has been mentioned above, was deducted from the amount held payable to Maya Devi on account of a similar amount having been received by her as compensation from Sher Singh, the driver of the truck. If a multiplier of ten were to be applied which would, indeed, be appropriate in this case, the amount of compensation that the claimants would be entitled to would be no more than this.

A half-hearted attempt was made by the counsel for the Appellants Sher Singh, etc. to show that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. He sought to refer in this behalf to the testimony of PW 10 Mukand Lal that the income which he is now receiving from the assets of the deceased is Rs. 600/- per month. Counsel contended that in the face of this statement, the claimants obviously suffered no loss and were, thus, not entitled to any compensation. This contention does not merit acceptance. If a claimant by his efforts earns more than the deceased may have been earning during his life time, this is no ground to assume that no loss was suffered by the claimant on account of the death of the deceased or to deny the claimants compensation which they would otherwise be entitled to.

In the result both the appeals are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.