S.K.Verma, J. - (1.) The respondents filed a claim petition against the appellant because of the death of Ganga Datt Joshi, who was constable in the Central Reserve Police on the basis that while he was going to his village on 1.1.1982, it is said that he met with an accident with bus No. UTF 7486, owned by the appellant. The claim petition for Rs. 1,26,519/- was filed by Hama Devi, mother of the deceased, Jaimati Devi, widow of the deceased, Shanti Devi and Lilla Devi, daughters of the deceased. The trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable for the accident because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid bus. This finding has not been challenged by the appellant. Further, the trial court also came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- had to be paid in a lump sum as compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits to the respondents and a further sum of Rs. 20,000/was payable on the basis of loss of love and affection. Another amount of Rs. 4,200/- was payable to the two daughters of the deceased on the basis of pecuniary benefits accruing to them and a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was also allowed as loss of pension which could have accrued to them had the deceased not met with the accident. Thus a total of Rs. 90,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 18,000/- + Rs. 4,200/- = Rs. 1,32,200/- was determined as compensation payable to the respondents out of which a sum of Rs. 32,200/- was reduced for lump sum payment. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- became payable. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 36,000/- paid ex gratia was also deducted and, thus, a decree for Rs. 64,000/- was passed in favour of the respondents along with the interest.
(2.) The appellant has mainly challenged the finding that the lump sum deduction should have been on the basis of the principle of reduction of 33 per cent as per the legal position enumerated in several decisions of different High Courts. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that Rs. 20,000/- granted as compensation for loss of love and affection could not have been granted because no compensation can be awarded on the basis of sentimentality. Only pecuniary loss can be compensated and that after deducting 33 per cent from the lump sum amount payable and also after deducting Rs. 20,000/- as stated above, the rest could have been awarded to the respondents and the appeal should, therefore, be allowed.
(3.) A cross-objection has also been filed for enhancement of the amount decreed in favour of the respondents but in spite of service of notice none has appealed to press the cross-objection. The cross-objection is, therefore, dismissed.;