F.A.O.No. 159 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 159 of 1988 & Cross-Obj.No.40-CII of 1988 Date of Decision : 3.12.2008 Shri Tara Chand Sharma & others ....Appellants Versus Mrs. Kundan Singh & others. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2/cross-objector. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of F.A.O.No.159 of 1988 filed by the claimants and Cross-Objections No.40-CII of 1988 preferred by the owner of the truck against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 22.9.1987 on the question of negligence. The appellants have assailed the award primarily on two grounds – (i) that the finding recorded on the issue of negligence holding the deceased guilty of contributing to the accident is erroneous; and (ii) on the quantum of compensation awarded is F.A.O.No. 159 of 1988 -2- inadequate. Assailing the issue of contributory negligence, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the site plan which is Ex.P-13 on record to contend that the deceased who was riding a bicycle was trying to negotiate a U-turn and had almost crossed the road when the truck coming from behind hit him. It was further contended that from the perusal of the site plan it is clear that it was the truck driver who was negligent. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on this aspect of the matter and have also perused the record. The site plan Ex.P13 shows that the deceased was trying to negotiate a U-turn on a T-junction. The point 'A' reflected in the site plan is the place where the truck impacted the deceased. It is almost immediately on the deceased having taken a U-turn. Thereafter he was dragged to a considerable distance. It is also reflected from the site plan that the truck is said to have stopped at a distance of 42 karms from the initial point of impact. The deceased, who was entering the main road and was on a slow moving contraption, was required to be more careful as it is logical that he would be entering a road where there would be fast moving vehicles. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no contributory negligence is misplaced. There was certainly an element of negligence on the part of the deceased himself as had he been more prudent he ought to have been able to let the truck pass before entering the road. It has to be noticed that point 'A' is almost towards the point where T-junction F.A.O.No. 159 of 1988 -3- ends. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not negligent. At the same time it has also to be noticed that the driver of the truck, who was entering upon the T-junction was required to be more cautious of the traffic emerging from the side road and entering the main road. Therefore, his contribution to the accident can also not be ignored. In the considered opinion of this Court since driver of the truck and the deceased both were negligent in causing the accident, the finding of contributory negligence does not warrant any interference. However, the truck driver and the deceased are held liable in causing the accident to the extent of 60% and 40%, respectively. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding the quantum of compensation which has been awarded. The deceased was a student of B.A.Part-II and aged 22 years. He was said to be doing some private work and drawing a salary of Rs.396/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income as such and the dependency at Rs.200/- and a multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive at a figure of Rs.38,400/- which was slashed by 50%. The deceased also died after some time in the hospital and an expenditure of Rs.4,000/- was incurred which was also slashed by 50% and only an amount of Rs.2,000/- was awarded to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the amount awarded is inadequate and that the notional income of the deceased should have been taken into consideration by noticing the fact that the deceased was a student of B.A.Part-II and had the F.A.O.No. 159 of 1988 -4- capability to earn and that he belonged to a respectable family. Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer and another(2004-1) P.L.R. 446. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the award, I am of the considered opinion that the amount awarded is inadequate. In Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another 2005 ACJ 99 the apex court while determining the compensation in the case of death of a 13 years old child took the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by applying a multiplier of 15 awarded a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 22 years and was a student of B.A.Part-II. Therefore, his propensity to earn would have been greater. In the circumstances of the case, it would be safe to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum. He was a young man of 22 years and, therefore, a multiplier of 10 would suffice in the given set of circumstances. In this manner, the compensation works out to Rs.2,50,000/- and the appellants shall be entitled to 60% of the said amount, which is computed as Rs.1,50,000/- in view of the contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 40%. It has also come in evidence that he died after some time of the accident and, therefore, the amount of Rs.4,000/- which was determined by the Tribunal, is allowed in toto. Another sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. In this manner, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,79,000/-. F.A.O.No. 159 of 1988 -5- The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal and cross-objections are disposed of. 3.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss