IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No.809 of 1991 Sher Singh and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate. Versus Jaswant Singh and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (2) F.A.O. No.810 of 1991 Sukhpinder Kaur and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate. Versus Jaswant Singh and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (3) F.A.O. No.812 of 1991 Surjit Kaur and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate. Versus Jaswant Singh and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... F.A.O.No.809 of 1991 -2- .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned three appeals which have been preferred against a common award dated 8.1.1991 passed in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 35 of 1988. In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.6.1988, Daljit Singh alias Sewak Singh, aged about 28 years; Swar Singh, aged about 55 years and Buta Singh, aged about 45 years; suffered multiple injuries along with others and later on, they succumbed to their injuries. The offending vehicle was a military truck owned by Union of India and being driven by Jaswant Singh, its driver. At the relevant time, they and others were travelling in a jeep bearing registration no. DBB-2739. Three separate claim petitions were filed by the legal of the deceased persons, whereas the fourth petition was filed by the owner of the jeep, for grant of compensation. In the claim petition filed by the widow, three children and mother of deceased Daljit Singh, it was alleged that he was earning Rs.18000/- per month as he was an agriculturist and was running a dairy farm & combine machine. The sons of deceased-Swar Singh, in their petition, pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month, whereas the widow and children of Buta Singh, in their claim petition, averred that the deceased was earning Rs.15000/- per month. Balwant Singh, the owner of the jeep, claimed in his petition a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of damages caused to his vehicle. F.A.O.No.809 of 1991 -3- .... After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Thereafter, it proceeded to assess the compensation payable to the claimants. The income of the deceased persons was assessed at Rs.600/- per month by treating them as labourer as the Tribunal did not find any cogent evidence to conclude otherwise. A sum of Rs.200/- was deducted on account of personal expenses of each of the deceased persons out of their monthly income and dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs.400/- per month,i.e., Rs.4800/- per annum. Keeping in view the age of the deceased persons, multipliers of `20', `10' and `15' were applied and compensation of Rs.96000/-, Rs.48000/- and Rs.72000/- to the legal heirs of Daljit Singh, Swar Singh and Buta Singh, respectively. Balwant Singh, the owner of the jeep, was also awarded a sum of Rs.7500/- on account of damages to the vehicle. Besides, the claimants were allowed interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petitions till the date of realisation. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the respondents, were jointly as well as severally held liable to pay the compensation and interest to the claimants. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed these appeals. It may be mentioned here that F.A.O. No.811 of 1991 filed by F.A.O.No.809 of 1991 -4- .... Balwant Singh, the owner of the jeep, has been dismissed for want of prosecution by a separate order of today. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. No one has appeared for the respondents. In my opinion, the impugned award in the cases of each of the deceased persons deserves to be modified. In the case of deceased-Swar Singh, the claimants are his sons. The Tribunal has assessed him as a labourer. However, his income has been wrongly taken. In the year 1988, it was expected that a casual labourer would have been earning Rs.800 to Rs.900/- per month and not Rs.600/-. In any eventuality, these factors are subject to the rough estimate and not accurate. The income of the deceased is accordingly taken as Rs.800/- per month. The deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased out of his monthly income, as applied by the Tribunal, is just and appropriate. Thus, the dependency comes to Rs.562/- which is rounded off to 565/- per month, i.e., Rs.6780/- per annum. The deceased was 55 years old at the time of his death. According to Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, (for short, `the Act of 1988'), which is a guiding factor, a multiplier of `11' is to be applied in the cases of the victims who fall in the age group to which the deceased belonged. In this way, the compensation works out to Rs.74580 (6780 x 11). A sum of Rs.10,000/- is allowed on account of funeral F.A.O.No.809 of 1991 -5- .... expenses. In this manner, the total compensation comes to Rs.84580/- which is awarded to the claimants. Now, I take up the case of deceased-Daljit Singh. He was 28 years of age when he was killed in the accident. He has also been treated as a labourer by the Tribunal in the absence of any cogent evidence qua his income. In so far as the finding that the deceased was a labourer does not warrant any interference and is upheld. However, the income as assessed is enhanced to Rs.800/- per month in view of the above discussion made in the case of Swar Singh. The deceased was survived by his widow, mother and three minor children and the widow was also stated to be expecting at the time of his death. In such circumstances, where the income of the deceased is meagre, it is not safe to apply the normal mode of deduction, especially when the dependents are more. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.150/- is deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency is assessed at Rs.650/- per month, i.e., Rs. 7800/- per annum. A multiplier of `18' is adopted as it is in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988, which is a guiding factor. In this manner, the compensation comes to Rs.1,40,400/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.10,000/- is allowed for loss of estate etc. Accordingly, the total compensation works out to Rs.1,60,400/- to which the claimants are held entitled to receive. F.A.O.No.809 of 1991 -6- .... In so far as the case of Buta Singh-deceased is concerned, he was survived by his widow and three sons. He was also assessed as a labourer, but his income was taken as Rs.600/-, which, by adopting the same yardsticks as in the cases of other two deceased persons have been applied, is enhanced to Rs.800/- per month. Keeping in view the number of dependents, a sum equivalent to 1/4th is deducted from his monthly income on account of personal expenses. Thus, the dependency is assessed at Rs.600/- per month, i.e., Rs.7200/- per annum. A multiplier of `15' is adopted in view of the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988 and thus, the compensation works out to Rs.1,08,000/- (7200 x 15). A sum of Rs.10,000/- is allowed on account of funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of estate etc. Accordingly, the legal heirs of Buta Singh are awarded a total sum of Rs.1,28,000/- as compensation. Besides, the claimants in all the cases will be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 11,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge