Umesh Kumar and Others vs Haryana State and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Ashi, wife of Umesh Kumar and mother of the remaining appellants, died on account of accident on 5.9.1982. It is the case of the appellants that Umesh Kumar along with his wife (now deceased), his minor sons and his brother was travelling in a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HYK 1817. They boarded the bus from Delhi for Kaithal. The bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Tara Chand, driver. Another bus bearing No. PUQ 4628 which was coming from Kaithal side was too being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The drivers of both the vehicles did not take appropriate steps to control the speed of their respective vehicles and so met with a head-on collision on account of which many passengers died and many others received multiple injuries. The claimants in the present case laid claim for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the death of Ashi.

This claim was resisted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who placed the whole burden upon the driver of Punjab Roadways bus No. PUQ 4628. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in turn placed the whole burden upon the driver of bus No. HYK 1817.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Haryana Roadways bus or Punjab Roadways bus, or of both? Onus on parties.

(2) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom? OPP.

(3) Relief.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50:50 on the part of the drivers of the Punjab Roadways bus as well as of Haryana Roadways bus and in this way issue No. 1 was decided. With regard to amount of compensation to the claimants, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident Ashi was not employed. However, keeping in view the fact that the claimants would have to procure the services of a servant and a tutor to look after the studies of the minor sons, namely, Manu and Kunal, the Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 2,400/- per annum, i.e., Rs. 200/- per month. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and so assessed the compensation payable at Rs. 24,000/-. In addition to it, the claimants were held entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation.

It is this paltry amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is being challenged by the appellants. According to the appellants, the Tribunal has, indeed, erred in law in not properly perusing the evidence led by the appellants to prove that Ashi was gainfully employed. According to the appellants, she was employed in a school and was getting a sum of Rs. 700/- per month. She, in fact, had to leave the service because of her pregnancy and so was not employed at the time of death. The statement of Umesh Kumar has gone unchallenged on record and in the absence of any rebuttal the Tribunal erred in ignoring the same.

I have perused the statement of Umesh Kumar, PW 3, husband of Ashi and one of the claimants. His deposition relevant for determining the amount of compensation reads as under:

...My son Manu is mentally deficient from his birth and my wife was the only person who was looking after him. I have now employed a house servant for my household and I am paying her Rs. 325/-per month. We had earlier employed a lady teacher; again said we have now employed a lady teacher for Manu and are paying Rs. 100/- per mensem. My wife herseif was a teacher and she used to teach Manu. My wife had also taught in Rural College of Education at Kaithal before her death. She left that job as she was expecting my younger child Kunal. I will think of my marriage only after the adjustment of my child, Manu.

A bare perusal of the above portion of the statement of Umesh Kumar clearly falsified the assertion of the appellant, Umesh Kumar, that her wife was getting a salary of Rs. 700/- per month. Except for making a mention that she taught in Rural College of Education at Kaithal there is neither any certificate from the institution in which she worked nor is there any proof on record with regard to the emoluments which were being paid by the educational institutions/ institution during the course of her employment. There is no evidence on the record that she was a qualified science teacher as alleged by Umesh Kumar. In the absence of proof, the Tribunal had no choice but to assess the loss treating her to be a mere housewife. There is no denying the fact that she had been performing the work of a housewife and had been taking specific care of her mentally deficient son, Manu. It has come in the statement of Umesh Kumar that Manu is mentally deficient from his birth and his wife alone was looking after him. This being the accepted position, the Tribunal has erred in law in granting this meagre amount to the claimants. One cannot lose sight of the fact that a whole-time servant is to be employed to look after this invalid child. Accordingly, I assess the compensation payable to the claimants appellants at Rs. 400/- per month. The Tribunal has also not applied the correct multiplier on the facts as given above. Following the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case reported as Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H), I allow the multiplier of 16. Calculated thus, the amount payable to the appellants-claimants comes to Rs. 76,800/-. I also increase the rate of interest, i.e., from 6 per cent to 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. The total amount thus would cany interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till recovery of the amount. No costs.