Ms. Gurcharan Kaur And Another vs Shri Raja Ram And Another
2000 Latest Caselaw 189 Del

ORDER

Khan, (J)

1. One Baldev Singh, 25, was killed in a road accident on 17.6.80 when hit by a tempo. He was unmarried and helping his father in his cycle shop. His parents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2.40 lakhs and projected his earning at Rs.700/- per month and more if he had survived. Tribunal worked out his dependency at Rs.200 per month and applying a multiplier of 20 to it, awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/- with 12% interest made payable by Insurance Company which had pleaded its liability at Rs.50,000/- only.

2. Appellants felt aggrieved of this and filed FAO No. 131/88 which was dismissed by one word order 26.7.1988. They have this LPA now claiming higher compensation on the ground that income of the deceased at the relevant time was Rs.700/- per month and that he would have earned more in future if he had lived, supplementing the multiplicand. It is also urged that a multiplier of 45 ought to have been applied considering that the age of the deceased was 25.

3. L/C for appellant has relied upon a Supreme Court Judgment, ( 1998 ACJ 848) awarding Rs.1.5 lakhs with 12% interest to the LRs of deceased labourer, and , granting Rs.5 lakhs in case of a custodial death besides a Division Bench Judgment of H.P. High Court in 1997 ACJ 831 awarding compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to parents of each student drowned while on picnic. Support was also drawn from a judgment of this Court (2000 ACJ 1006) awarding Rs.2 lakhs to parents of a student who was run over by a vehicle near his school.

4. It is not possible for us to follow all these judgments except Shanti Bai's judgment (1998 ACJ 848) because these were all passed in exercise of a writ jurisdiction requiring no method of valuation in accident claims to be followed. In Shanti Bai's case, however, the Supreme Court assumed that deceased labourer could have earned Rs.10 per day and on that basis awarded to his LRs Rs. 1.5 lakhs with 12% interest.

5. In the present case there is no proof of earning of deceased who was allegedly helping his father in his cycle repair shop. In such a case it would be appropriate to take his income on average national basis taking in regard the future prospects also. Proceeding on this premise it could be safely assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and if 1/3rd of this amount was deducted for his personal expenses, it would work out the annual dependency roughly at Rs.7,600/- and capitalising it by a multiplier of 20 total compensation amount would come to Rs.1,52,000/-. Appellants are accordingly found entitled to total compensation of Rs.1.52 lakhs.

6. No one came forward to represent Insurance Company in the present case to defend that its liability was limited to Rs.50 thousand only. The compensation amount would, therefore, be payable by it with 12% interest on the enhanced amount from date of Tribunal award (3.9.1987) till date of payment. Respondent Insurance Company shall work-out remaining outstanding amount and take steps to pay it to appellants within four months from receipt of this order.