Smt. Darshna and Others vs Raj Shah Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment will dispose of FAO No. 705 of 1985 and F.A.O. 865 as they have arisen out of the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, dated 22.4.1985.

FAO No. 705 of 1985 has been filed by the claimants appellants for enhancement of the compensation and FAO No. 865 of 1985 has been filed by the State for quashing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal.

For the purpose of judgment facts have been taken from FAO No. 705 of 1985.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on a claim petition u/s 110-A and 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by Smt. Darshana Devi and others, had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- with 6% P.A. interest from the date of the claim petition as compensation though they were held to be entitled to Rs. 2,49,600/- out of which 1/6th was deducted on account of accelerated payment and other imponderable factors.

The challenge to the award is that the Tribunal had erred in calculating the income of the deceased by deducting Rs. 125/- per month as house rent which the deceased was drawing from his employer and the Tribunal should not have deducted l/6th amount out of Rs. 2,49,600/- to which the claimants were held entitled. The other ground of challenge is that the Tribunal had not awarded proper rate of interest. The Counsel for the claimants contended that a suitable multiplier had not been applied by the Tribunal.

In the appeal filed by the State the challenge to the award is that on the date of accident the visibility was poor and the driver of Bus No. BYK 1813 was driving it with headlights on. It was due to the negligence of the driver of Bus No. UTX 905 that the accident took place.

The undisputed position which emerges from the record is that the deceased Tarlochan Singh, aged 38 years, had died as a result of the accident which was caused due to rash, negligent and careless driving of Bus No. HYK 1813 by its drives Ram Parkash, Respondent No. 3. The Tribunal had returned a categoric finding that no fault could be attributed to Bus No. UTX 905.

I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

On consideration of the matter, I find that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is based on cogent and convincing evidence. As such the same does not call for any interference.

It stands proved on record from the statement of Dr. O.P. Gogia (W-1), Post Mortem report Ex.P-A, statement of PW-6 Darshana Devi, widow of the deceased as well as statement of A.L. Taneja, PW-2, Head Clerk, Canal Lining Mechanical Division No. 10, Kaithal, that the deceased was 39 years and 2 months old on the date of accident i.e. 20.12.1983. It further stands proved on record that the total emoluments of the deceased were Rs. 2033/- per month, the detail of which is as under:-

Basicpay Rs. 1060.00 Deputation allowance Rs. 212.00 A.D.A. Rs. 236.00 House Rent Rs. 125.00 ----------- Rs. 2033.00 -----------

The deceased had left behind his widow, three minor daughter namely Geetu, Reetu and Mannu, besides his old mother Smt. Kaushalaya Devi. The Tribunal after deducting Rs. 125/- on account of house rent, Rs. 633/- on account of personal expenditure out of the monthly income of Rs. 2033/- and by applying a multiplier of 16, had assessed dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 2,49,600/- but after deducting 1/6th amount, it bad awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- with 6% PA interest as compensation.

I am of the view that there was no justification in deducting Rs. 125/- as house rent while calculating the monthly income of the deceased. While calculating monthly income, the salary including all allowances are taken as a whole. The Tribunal should not have deducted Rs. 125/- out of the monthly income while assessing the dependency of the claimants.

Admittedly, the deceased was getting Rs. 2033/- per month as salary. Out of this income, the deceased after deducting Rs. 733/- as his personal expenditure must have been spending Rs. 1300/- on his family. In this manner, the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased would be Rs. 15,600/-(Rs. 1300x12).

It is not under stood as to how the Tribunal had stated that a Govt. employee would retire at the age of 55 years when the age of superannuation in the State of Haryana is 58 years. As such, the Tribunal had erred in adopting a multiplier of 16. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the fact that he had to retire at the age of 58 years, it is a fit case in which a multiplier of 18 instead of 16 should be applied. Taking the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 15,600/- and by applying a multiplier of 18, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 2,80,000/- with 12% PA interest form the date of claim petition as compensation. Out of the compensation awarded by this Court, a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- is to be adjusted. The claimants shall share the amount of compensation as under:-

Smt. Dharshana widow of the deceased. Rs. 1,20,000/- ii) Minor daughters, claimants No. 2, 3 Rs. 1,35,000/- and 4 @ Rs. 45,000/- each, iii) Mother of the deceased claimant - Rs. 25,000/- appellant no. 5. -------------- Rs. 2,80,000/- --------------

The share of the minor claimants shall be deposited in the Nationalised Bank as directed by the Tribunal.

Consequently, FAO No. 705 of 1985 filed by the claimants is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

As regards FAO No. 865 of 1985 filed by the State, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the State by its driver is based on evidence. As such, no interference is called for in the same. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.