Sukhdev Kaur and Others vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—On December 16, 1977, at about 11 p.m. an accident took place between a truck and a motor cycle. Karam Singh, who was driving the motor cycle, died on the spot. His widow along with two minor children and his parents filed a petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. On examination of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place ''due to rash and negligent act of driving of respondent No. 3, the driver.'' He further found that Karam Singh who was aged 30 years was employed with the Sugarcane Co-operative Society on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. Holding that he would have continued in service up to the age of 50 years, i.e., for a period of 20 years from the date of his death, it awarded a compensation of Rs. 72,000/-.

Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the owner of the truck and the insurance company filed F.A.O. No. 225 of 1978. The claimants filed F.A.O. No. 279 of 1978 for enhancement of the compensation already awarded. The learned single Judge partly accepted the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company and reduced the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal from Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 48,000/-. He dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants.

The claimants have now filed L.P.A. Nos. 616 and 617 of 1984 challenging the order of the learned single Judge. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The primary contention raised by Mr. Munish-war Puri, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the learned single Judge has erred in reducing the compensation from Rs. 72,000 to Rs. 48,000/-. This contention has been controverted by Mr. Pardeep Bhandari and Mr. P.S. Rana appealing for the respondents.

It is the admitted position that the deceased was a youngman of 30 years and was employed. as a Secretary with the Sugarcane Co-operative Society. He was earning Rs. 300/- per month. Further, the assumption of the Tribunal that Karam Singh would have continued in service at least till the age of 50 years also appeals to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in assuming that Karam Singh would have provided Rs. 3,600/- per year to the family for a period of 20 years. Accordingly, in our view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and fair.

Mr. Munishwar Puri contended that Karam Singh was also deriving an income of Rs. 600/- per month from land. On this basis, he contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced.

We are unable to accept this contention. The Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge have on perusal of evidence come to a positive finding that Karam Singh did not own any land and as such there was no basis for holding that he was deriving an income of Rs. 600/- per month from agriculture. We are in agreement with this finding and find no ground to interfere with it.

Mr. Pardeep Bhandari contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge on the basis of the judgment of a Full Bench of this court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H) and applying a multiplier of 16 was unexceptionable. In the abstract, the contention raised by the learned counsel may be correct. However, keeping in view the fact that Karam Singh was a youngman of 30 years only and that there was reasonable likelihood of an upward increase in his emoluments, as also the fact that an employee normally continues in service even beyond the age of 50 years, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal was absolutely proper. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and restore the award of the Tribunal. The appellants will be entitled to the payment of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. They will also be entitled to the costs of these proceedings which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly L.P.A. No. 616 of 1984 is allowed in the above terms.

However, L.P.A. No. 617 of 1984 is dismissed.