Sushil Kumar and Others vs Joga Singh and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala.

Raj Kumari, a school teacher, while returning home after attending the school met with an accident with truck bearing No. PNB 1105 and as a result of which she was crushed underneath the truck and was declared dead. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence has returned the finding that she died on account of rash and negligent driving of truck by Joga Singh, driver of the truck. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal determined the dependency of minor children at Rs. 200/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 8, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in all which amount was made liable to be paid by the insurance company. The claim of Sushil Kumar, husband of Raj Kumari, was declined.

The pecuniary loss accruing to the husband or the Children on the death of wife or mother, as the case may be, can arise under one or more of the various heads as catalogued in Kemp and Kemp on Quantum of Damages, Volume I, these being:

(1) Loss of wife''s contribution to the household from her own earnings.

(2) Expenses of employing a house-keeper or servant to perform services which the wife had rendered gratuitously.

(3) Expenses of providing boarding and lodging for such housekeeper or servant.

(4) Additional expenses caused by having the household run by housekeeper or servant instead of the wife.

(5) Expense of furnishing the room and providing requisite amenities for the housekeeper or servant.

(6) Expense of sending children away to boarding school.

(7) Expense of buying children''s clothes instead of having them made by wife.

(8) Expense of having his own clothes etc., mended by wife.

(9) Having to eat meals out instead of having them cooked by the wife.

(10) Loss of element of security where husband''s employment was insecure or his health bad and where wife had been accustomed to get out to work to keep the home going when the husband was not working.

As has come in the statement of Hari Dev, Raj Kumari. had been getting Rs. 817/-per month after deduction as her salary. Excluding the amount which she must be spending on her own as well as expenses for going to school on conveyance, etc., the net carry home salary could not be assessed less than Rs. 500/-.The conclusion of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that at best Raj Kumari had been spending Rs. 200/- only for the welfare of her children and to meet other household expenses is not justified by any process of reasoning. In fact, the Tribunal has not disclosed its mind while arriving at this conclusion. The Tribunal while applying multiplier of 8 has taken into consideration the age of the youngest child who was 9-1/2 years old at the time of accident. Since the minor children would become major after the expiry of 8 years they would not have remained dependent upon their mother and this way their dependency was calculated for a period of 8 years only.

The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the compensation to be awarded is to be assessed not only with reference to the earnings of the deceased but also for the other services provided by her in the house-hold even though rendered gratuitously. The liability of the parents to look after their children does not end with their attaining majority. In our society, parents support their wards till they are gainfully employed. Not only this, they have to spend on their marriages and even thereafter till such time they are able to support themselves. The Tribunal thus has erred in applying a multiplier of 8 only. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, following, the principles laid down in the case reported as Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur? (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.), multiplier of 16 would be appropriate. Since I have assessed the contribution of the deceased towards the household expenses at Rs. 500/- p.m. the claimants excluding Sushil Kumar are liable to be awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/-.

Sushil Kumar purposely has not. disclosed the nature of the work, business nor has he disclosed the extent of his earnings. The Tribunal while referring to his deposition has highlighted this fact. Besides this, it has been observed that the house is under construction wherein three rooms have already been built. Since Raj Kumari had only a meagre salary, it is quite unthinkable that a person without any income would be in a position to carry on the construction of a house. The Tribunal rightly declined the claim of Sushil Kumar. Accordingly, I accept the appeal qua the claim of Parmod Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Pardeep Kumar and Anita Rani and award a compensation of Rs. 96,000/- which amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 18.5.1983 till its realisation. The amount awarded is inclusive of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest already awarded by the Tribunal. The claim qua Sushil Kumar appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.