IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 Date of Decision: 29.5.2008 Ram Khilawan and another --- Appellants Versus Som Nath Sharma and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide award dated 19.5.1988. The claimant-appellants are the parents of Ram Dhan who died on 3.5.1987 due to injuries received by him in the vehicular accident which occurred between the bicycle on which he was riding at the relevant time and a Maruti Van bearing registration No. DBB-975, driven by Molu Ram respondent No. 2. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 20 years and was working as a Labourer at different places. By doing such jobs he was alleged to have been earning a sum of Rs. 800/- per month. It was further averred that the claimant- appellants were fully dependent on their son, Ram Dhan, and they had no other source of income for their survival. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. two lacs. F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 The record depicts that only the respondent-Insurance Company came forward to resist the claim. It was admitted that the Maruti Van was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. It was pleaded that the claim was highly exaggerated and there was no valid driving licence with the driver and registration certificate of the Maruti Van in question. It was also pleaded that the liability of the Insurance Company was restricted in terms of the policy only. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) framed the following issues:- 1- Whether Ram Dhan died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No. DBB-975 by respondent No.2 on 1.5.1987 as alleged? OPP 2- Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3- Whether the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted as per terms of the policy? 4- Relief. The Tribunal under issue No.1 returned a finding that Ram Dhan died in the accident in question which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van by its driver-respondent No.2. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimant-appellants who were held entitled to compensation. The Tribunal accordingly accepted the petition vide award dated 19.5.1988, and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 29,000/- in favour of the claimants. It was directed that the entire claim shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company. It was also ordered that the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation, at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount. The Tribunal apportioned the amount of Pag F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 compensation between the father and the mother of the deceased, to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- and 20,000/- respectively. The interest payable on the amount of compensation was also ordered to be apportioned in the same proportions. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the records with his assistance. It deserves to be noticed that the proceedings in the claim petition were not contested by the owner and the driver of the offending Maruti Van. The claim was contested only on behalf of the Insurance Company, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and in this Court, even the Insurance Company also, has not chosen to resist the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants despite there being adequate notice as no counsel has appeared in court to argue the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is very less and the appellants were entitled to more compensation. The counsel relied upon two judgments of this Court, namely, Mukhtiar Singh and others Versus Dev Raj and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 507; and United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Raj Rani, 1996(2) P.L.R. 495(D.B.). The counsel submitted that the deceased in the present case was a young man of 20 years and had been working as labourer on daily wages wherefrom he used to earn Rs. 800/- per month and contribute a sum of Rs. 600/- per month to the claimants. The counsel, referring the observations in the aforesaid judicial precedents, contended that since the deceased was just 20 years of age, he was not likely to be married for at least another 4 to 5 years and, thus, he would have certainly contributed 2/3rd of his income to the claimants who are his parents. The counsel drawing support from the observations in para 3 of the judgment of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh and others’ case (supra) submitted that the factor that has weighed with Pag F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 the Tribunal that after the marriage the dependency of the appellants on Ram Dhan deceased would be reduced, has the other side of the coin also. The counsel submitted that with the passage of time, the income of the deceased was also likely to be increased and, therefore, the aspect of marriage of the son of the appellants would not alleviate the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. If the possibility of contribution of the deceased to his parents being reduced, after his marriage, cannot be ruled out, the same analogy would also apply to the increase in the income of the deceased. There is unchallenged evidence on the record that the deceased was working as labourer and it is a natural and observable fact that more a labourer gets perfection in his job, more he starts earning. The increase in labour charges is noticed all the times. In other words, the income of even a labourer cannot be said to be static at every point of time and therefore, a reasonable increase in the income of the deceased can certainly be presumed. It had come in evidence led on behalf of the claimants that they were absolutely on the breadline and were totally dependent on the amount being contributed by their son, Ram Dhan, who became victim of the unfortunate vehicular accident. To be fair to the respondents herein, who have for the reasons best known to them not chosen to put in appearance, it deserves to be noticed that whether there is any or ample evidence on record to determine a specific and exact amount of income of the deceased at the time of his death and, whether in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of a deceased can be fixed. For answer to this question, the following observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Raj Rani’s case (supra) can be noticed, which are thus: Pag F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 “No doubt, the claimants could not produce any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased, but the witnesses examined by the claimants orally proved the monthly income of the deceased. In every claim case it is not feasible for the claimants to adduce any documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was doing the business of selling foot wears. If no documentary evidence is adduced with regard to his monthly income, it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the claimants to prove this fact was unreliable and unbelievable.” It has been held in various enunciations by the Apex Court that in the matters of assessing the amount of compensation, especially in the cases of vehicular accidents, some guess work is inevitable apart from applying the well-recognised principles of awarding compensation. As would be seen from the perusal of the award, though the father of the deceased, PW-3 Ram Khilawan while appearing as his own witness categorically stated that his son Ram Dhan used to work on daily wages and earn Rs. 800/- per month, out of which he used to send to them a sum of Rs. 600/- per month, but the Tribunal adopted its own yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. Taking the minimum wages at Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 per day, the Tribunal concluded that the income of the deceased could not be more than Rs. 550/- per month. This was so concluded being influenced by a very weak type of reason that it was not necessary that deceased may have got the labour job on all the days and that the minimum wages of a labourer prevalent at that time were hardly Rs. 15 to 20 per day. Making 1/3rd as usual deductions from the said amount, on account of personal expenses, the Tribunal came to determine the income of the deceased at Rs. 370/- per month. How the Pag F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 dependency of the claimant-appellants on the deceased was thereafter assessed, is another conspicuous question that has been answered by the Tribunal, in the following manner :- “The deceased was, however, unmarried and he would have eventually married and his contribution towards his parents would have decreased because he would probably have spent a large portion out of his income upon his family. However, till he was married he would probably have spent a large portion out of his income upon his parents. It would, therefore, be fair to quantify Rs. 150/- per month as the dependency of the parents would come to Rs. 1800/- per month. Applying the normal multiplier of 16 the amount of compensation to which the parents are entitled, comes to Rs. 150 x 12 x16= 28,800/-. However, in order to round up the figure, it will be reasonable to allow compensation of Rs.29,000/- to the claimants.” The Tribunal has assessed the dependency on a false assumption that the deceased would earn at the same rate for the whole month. Some time he may get job, and some time may not and hence, though the rate of a labourer was Rs. 20/- per day, his income could not be fixed more than Rs. 370/- per month. Still the Tribunal made more than half of the deductions on the assumption that on getting married, the deceased would have contributed major portion of his income on his own family and his parents would have been the second choice of being taken care of as far as the question of contribution of money out of his income was concerned. The whole approach of the Tribunal in this regard is misconceived. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased could not have been Pag F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 determined less than Rs. 750/- per month, because undisputedly, the deceased was hale and hearty having good physique and was just 20/22 years of age at the time of death. There was every likelihood of his earning more besides there being a hike in labour charges which one always feels on every day passing. Once the income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 750/- per month, the dependency of the appellants on the deceased would come to Rs. 500/- per month after applying a usual cut of 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses. The yearly dependency of the appellants would, therefore, come to Rs.6000/-. Applying the same multiplier i.e. 16, as was done by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation would thus come to Rs. 96,000/-. To this amount, a sum of Rs. 5000/- is further added on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- is also added on account of consortium. The total compensation would thus, be calculated to Rs. 1,11,000/-. The appellants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the award, till the final payment of entire compensation amount. The amount so enhanced by this Court shall accordingly be apportioned in the same ratio at which it has been awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation, i.e. the amount that remains unpaid till now and the amount enhanced under this order, along with interest as per the award under appeal and also by this Court, would be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company with the Tribunal within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry shall send forthwith a copy of this order to the respondent-Insurance Company for due compliance. The appeal of the appellants is partly accepted and the award of the Tribunal is modified in the manner indicated above. No costs. Pag F.A.O. No. 993 of 1988 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) May , 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* Pag