PRITAM SINGH JAIN Vs. GIANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to decide three connected Appeals bearing No. 169 of 1985, 170 of 1985 and 171 of 1985, all of which have been filed by the claimants. The original lis i.e. claim petitions likewise were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the learned Counsel for the parties also suggest same method to be adopted by this Court.

(2.) Inasmuch as there is no controversy now with regard to negligence and the one who was responsible for causing the accident and that the claimants only ask for further enhancing the compensation granted to them, it is not necessary at all to deal with how and in what manner the accident took place. Suffice, therefore, it to say in F.A.O. No. 169 of 1985, the claimants are parents to Kulbhushan, their son who died at prime age i.e. when he was 26 years of age. F.A.O. No. 171 of 1985 is filed by the claimants who happened to be the widow, a minor son and out of parents the father, who still survives whereas the mother died during the pendency of the petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Surja Ram also died at his prime age when he was only 24 years old. Dhan Raj a Halwai by evocation suffered multiple injuries and on account of that staked his claim to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimants in F.A.O. 169 of 1985 i.e. parents of Kulbhushan claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation whereas dependents of Surja Ram staked their claims to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Parents of Kulbhushan were granted Rs. 48,000/- by the Tribunal whereas dependents of Surja Ram were granted Rs. 38,400/-. So far as Dhan Raj is concerned, he was granted Rs. 32,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties on the quantum of compensation and I am of the clear view that in all appeals the claimants are entitled to much more than that was given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It may be mentioned here that while working out the compensation the Tribunal did not return a positive finding with regard to the income of the deceased or the injured. I have been taken through the evidence with regard to income of those who died as also of Dhan Raj who was injured. It has come in the evidence that in so far as Kulbhushan is concerned, he was having an income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Ex.AX an assessment order of income-tax for the year 1981-82 depicting the net income of deceased Kulbhushan deceased was also place on record. It is usually seen that the income in the income-tax returns is not exactly to the tune of income of a person and some attempt is always made to under assess it so that a person may not have to pay more income-tax. However, that may not be a ground to assess the income of the person on a higher side i.e. more than depicted in his income-tax returns but in the present case, the evidence clearly shows that the deceased was running shoe shop at Hissar which is and was always a developing town. In due course of time, the income of this person would have gone up. The average of Rs. 2,000/- as his income was not, therefore, on a very higher. It is this amount which ought to have been seen by the Tribunal to work out the dependency of parents of Kulbhushan. It is true that Kulbhushan was not married and that he could not have been parting with his substantial income to his parents. However, it can well be imagined that he was contributing atleast Rs. 500/- per month to help out his parents. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16 and that seems to be just and proper as the parents of Kulbhushan were not very old. The father of Kulbhushan at the time when the later i.e. Kulbhushan died was 51 years of age. His mother was, of course 2/3 years younger to him. Working out, thus, the dependency of the parents at Rs. 500/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, the claimants become entitled to Rs. 96,000/-. The compensation payable to them is, thus, held to be Rs. 96,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to 12% interest from the date they made an application to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.