IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.375 of 2004 Date of decision: 1.08.2008 Smt. Kashmira Devi and others Appellants Versus Sh. Gian Chand Sharma and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the appellants: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Viktrant Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, J (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. This appeal by the dependents (claimants) of late Madan Lal, who died in an accident of Truck No.HP-23-2220, which took place on 29.1.2001, is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby a sum of Rs.2,35,200/- has been awarded by way of compensation and it has been ordered that in case the amount is not paid within two months of the making of the award, interest at the rate of 9% per annum, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 shall be payable by the respondents, i.e., the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company. 3. Grievance of the appellants-claimants is that the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and it (the Tribunal) has assumed the income of the deceased equivalent to a daily waged worker, i.e. Rs.2000/- a month, though the evidence on record suggests that his income was not less than Rs.5000/- a month. 4. I have gone through the evidence on record. There is a certificate Ext. PB, issued by the Patwari, to the effect that the total income of the family of the deceased was Rs.54,000/- per annum. The certificate is indicative of the income of all the family members of the deceased and not the deceased’s own income. PW-1 Smt. Kashmira Devi, widow of the deceased, while in the witness box, testified that deceased used to earn Rs.8000/-, a month, out of which Rs.5000/- a month were paid to her for household affairs. The testimony of PW-1 Kashmira Devi, the widow of the deceased, cannot be taken to be true, in view of certificate, Ext. PB, of the Patwari, according to which, the total income of all the members of the family of the deceased was Rs.54,000/- per annum. 5. Patwari Madan Lal, while appearing as PW-4, stated that certificate Ext. PB pertains to the income of the deceased alone, who used to work as a carpenter. In the cross- examination, he stated that the certificate was based on oral enquiry made by him. He stated that deceased was a carpenter by occupation, whereas the plea of the claimants is that he was 3 a blacksmith. The Patwari very categorically stated that the deceased did not own any land. 6. In view of the above stated position, the evidence adduced by the appellants-claimants cannot be said to be of any relevance for determining as to what was the actual income of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that where the evidence with regard to the income of the deceased is lacking, dependency is to be assumed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month, as was done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and others, 2007 ACJ 825. In that case a truck driver, aged 33 years, died in an accident. It was alleged that his monthly income was Rs.8000/-. However, the evidence adduced in support of the allegation was not definite and specific. The Hon’ble Supreme Court looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case assumed loss of dependency at the rate of Rs.3000/-, a month. Multiplier of 13 was adopted and compensation worked out and awarded accordingly. 8. In the present case, the deceased, according to appellants’ own showing, was a blacksmith, working in a village. His income cannot be assumed to be more than Rs.3000/- a month. Out of his monthly earning of Rs.3000/-, the deceased must have been consuming at least Rs.1000/- a month, on his own food and other necessities of life, leaving the balance of Rs.2000/- for his dependents i.e. the claimants. So, the loss of 4 dependency is held to be Rs.2000/- a month or say Rs.24,000/- per annum. 9. In the present case, the age of the deceased was 35 years. So, multiplier of 12 years’ purchase should be the right choice, because in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court chose the multiplier of 13 years’ purchase, where the age of the deceased was 33 years. By application of the aforesaid multiplier to the datum figure of Rs.24,000/- per annum, amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,88,000/-. 10. In addition to the aforesaid amount of money, the claimants are entitled to conventional damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be paid by the respondents comes to Rs.3,03,000/-. Claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforesaid amount of compensation from the date of the petition. Accordingly, it is ordered that in addition to the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs.3,03,000/-, the claimants shall be paid, by the respondents, interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 12.3.2001 to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of compensation. 11. The Appeal stands disposed of. August 1, 2008(ss) (Surjit Singh) Judge