(1.) CLAIMANTS have filed this appeal against the order dated March 2, 1987, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby only Rs. 60,000/- were awarded to appellants 1 and 2 only.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case were that appellants 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Onkar Singh and appellant No. 3 is minor brother of the deceased. On April 5, 1986, the deceased was going in tempo No. PJB-6723. At about 8. 00 A. M. near Rampur on Chandigarh-Rajpura road truck No. HYA-5797 collided against the said tempo, wherein the deceased was travelling as a second driver. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and finally succumbed to them. The deceased was unmarried, aged 22 years and was getting Rs. 900/- per month as pay. He was giving Rs. 700/- to the appellants for their maintenance. This accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent Bal Bahadur, driver of the said truck which was owned by respondent M/s Bhagat Singh Gian Singh and was insured with respondent No. 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited. In the claim petition, driver of the tempo Jugraj Singh, its owner Gurvinder Singh Brar and its Insurance Company were also impleaded as parties, though the name of this Insurance Company was not disclosed.
(3.) THE Claims Tribunal held that this accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of Bal Bahadur, driver of the aforementioned truck, wherein deceased Onkar Singh sustained multiple injuries and breathed his last. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was unmarried, aged 22 years and was earning Rs. 900/- per month as driver of the said temp. Deceased's father Prem Singh deposed that his son was giving Rs. 700/- per month to the claimants for their maintenance, but the Tribunal further held that in due course of time the deceased would have married and in that event would not have given larger amount to the claimants for maintenance. Any how the Tribunal held that the deceased would have spared more than Rs. 300/- per month for the maintenance of the claimants. Thus, their dependency was determined at Rs. 3750/- per annum. Considering the age-group of appellants 1 and 2 as 48 and 45 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to claimant-appellants 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of petition i. e. July 31, 1986. The Tribunal also held that respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay this amount to the claimants jointly and severally, but as the said truck was insured with respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company alone was held liable to make the payment.