Ganga Devi And Ors. vs Randhir Singh And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 131 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present first appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation as awarded by Shri R D Aggarwal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 12th March, 1979. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation for the amount of Rs. 1 lakh on account of death of one Kesho Dutt in an accident on September 8, 1973. While the deceased was proceeding from Azadpur to Rani Bagh on a cycle and having reached the Ring Road near Britania Biscuit Factory, truck bearing No. Hrr 659 came from behind at a very fast speed without blowing any horn and knocked down the deceased. The deceased fell down along with the cycle and sustained multiple injuries and he ultimately died. The truck driver, Randhir Singh, respondent no. I, did not stop the truck and fled away. It is further stated that the deceased was a able bodied skilled carpenter and was employed with the Northern Railway and was getting Rs. 400.00 per month and in view of the untimely death the dependents were deprived of their means of livelihood, besides the love and protection which they used to get 1. Whether Kesho Dutt sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. Hrr 659 on the part of respondent No.1? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased? 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom? 5. Relief.

(2) The appellants in support of their case examined six witnesses and respondents did not adduce any evidence. The case also proceeded ex parte against respondent no. 3, insurance company, as no one appeared at the stage of final arguments. Issue No. 1 and 3

(3) The learned Judge decided issue nos. 1 and 3 and held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and that the deceased who was merely going on a cycle in a proper manner had nothing to contribute in so far as the accident was concerned. Issue No. 2

(4) The Tribunal held that appellant no. I is the wife of the deceased, appellants 2 to 6 are the children of the deceased who were minor at the time of accident. They are now major. It has been brought to my notice that the mother of the deceased has also passed away. The legal heirs are already on record as appellants and it will not be necessary to take any proceedings as a result of her death.

(5) The quantum of compensation was considered and the learned Judge concluded that the deceased was aged about 45 years. His salary was Rs. 400.00 per month and the family dependency of the deceased for loss as a result of his death was assessed at Rs. 250.00 per month. The multiplier of 10 was adopted and the compensation was assessed at Rs. 30,000.00 as a result of dependency and Rs. 5,000.00 was assessed separately as a solace to the heirs of the deceased. The learned Judge further considered that Rs. 6,000.00 was received by the heirs of the deceased from the railways and 10% of this amount was deducted for the immediate payment of the amount. The family dependency of the deceased having been assessed at Rs. 250.00 per month an allowance was made for lump sum payment and the Tribunal assessed the just amount at Rs. 25,000.00 in favor of the appellants. The award as a consequence for this amount was passed by order dated March 12, 1979. The -appellants have come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation to Rs. I lakhs on account of death of Kesho Dutt. I have perused the pleadings and the evidence on record. . It is sad state that the accident took place as far back as on September 8, 1973 and the only sum which has been awarded to the appellant was Rs. 25,000.00 . There is no doubt that the learned Judge has assessed the amount of dependency at Rs. 250.00 per month on the basis of the income of the deceased having been assessed at Rs. 400.00 per month and has proceeded to" award the. sum by using the multiplier of 10. He has, however, deducted a sum of 10% on Rs. 6.000.00 which was the amount accumulated in the provident fund account of the deceased and further reduced the compensation to Rs. 25,000.00 which was held to be just. The evidence of the appellant no. 1, Smt. Ganga Devi, who is the widow of the deceased indicated that the deceased was a carpenter and was also having an extra earning of Rs.l50-175.00 per month. He was enjoying good health and the appellants have been deprived of income and livelihood after the death and the deceased could have supported them for number of years. The evidence on record would indicate that the amount of dependency as assessed at Rs. 250.00 per month is rather on the low side and the Tribunal also was oblivious of the fact that the deceased would have progressed in his life and earned more than Rs. 400.00 which had been assessed as income of the deceased per month. The other factors which have been taken into consideration such as 10% of the amount from the amount of Rs. 6,000.00 as provident fund and further reduction to Rs. 25,000.00 is obviously without any basis. The lumpsum payment has long ceased to be any further criteria for reducing the amount of dependency in view of the fact that years pass by and the unfortunate heirs are left in the cold. It is a pathetic case where the deceased died leaving behind his widow and 5 minor children as well as his old mother and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal seems rather inadequate on the facts of the present case. The appellants have already been fair by claiming only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and as their claim has further been slashed down on non-existent grounds and without any basis in law. Taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case I am inclined to held that the deceased would be contributing the sum of Rs.400.00 per month to the appellants which will indicate that he would be contributing a sum of Rs.4800.00 per year. This amount in present days looks very meagre. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment in Urmila Pandey & Ors. Vs. Khalil Ahmad and Ors 1994 Acj 805 in similar circumstances determined the life expectancy of the deceased as 65 years when the accident took place in that case in the year 1970. The Tribunal, therefore, in the present case has erred in computing the compensation amount and was not justified in assuming the life expectancy to be 55 years as the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of his death, particularly when the deceased was an artisan and capable of earning as, a carpenter. It could not be less than 65 years even at that point of time. The Tribunal also fell in error in making further deduction from the sum of Rs.35,000.00 which was awarded. The appellants, therefore, are held entitled to compensation towards damages at Rs. one lakh which is assessed on the basis of Rs. 400.00 per month as dependency towards the claimants i.e. Rs.400.00 x 12 = Rs.4800.00 per annum. The multiplier of 20 which is more appropriate to the present case can be used which will give an overall compensation to 'the appellants at Rs.96,000.00 . The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000.00 in a separate head and without going into any particular head I enhance the compensation to the amount of Rs. I lakh on which amount the appellants shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application. before the Tribunal till realisation. This will obviously take into account any amount which has since been disbursed by the insurance company to the heirs of the deceased. In case, the amount is not paid within the period of three months the insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. thereafter. The amount shall be paid by way of a demand draft in the name of Mrs. Ganga Devi who is the widow of-the deceased on her behalf and on behalf of her children. The appeal as a consequence is allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified in the above terms. The appellants shall also be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs.5,000.00 .

(6) The name of appellant no. 7 who has already expired is deleted.