Navita Singh, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is filed against the award dated 1.2.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter called the Tribunal) granting lumpsum compensation of Rs. 60,000/ - to the appellants for the death of their unmarried son. They prayed for enhancement. The case of the appellants was that the deceased Ram Avtar was going in Truck No. HIK6757 as a Cleaner on 29.12.1990 at about 11:20 A.M. on G.T. Road near Kundli Barrier, when the accident in question took place. The vehicle was being driven by Daya Kishan and when they reached near B.K. Iron and Steel Factory, Bahalgarh, the driver stopped the truck on seeing one canter lying overturned on the road where many people had gathered. The deceased who was accompanied by Kishori Ram got down from the truck and was standing behind the stationary vehicle. In the meanwhile, the offending vehicle i.e. Bus No. HNS -2972 belonging to Haryana Roadways Sonepat, came there which was going towards Delhi and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1. The bus hit the truck as a result of which Kishori Ram and Ram Avtar were crushed between the two vehicles. They died at the spot. The appellants being the parents of Ram Avtar claimed compensation for his death caused by Gopal Singh who fled from the spot. The accident was witnessed by Jai Bhagwan, Jaswant Kumar and Daya Kishan. The age of the deceased was stated to be 23 years, who was employed as Conductor/Cleaner on the truck and his income was Rs. 1200/ - per month. He was also a qualified mechanic for television and radio etc and was earning upto Rs. 3,000/ - per month from that work.
(2.) THE driver did not contest the petition and matter was heard ex parte against him. The State of Haryana through General Manager filed written statement alleging that the bus was being driven by Gopal Singh at normal speed and the accident was an act of God. It was pleaded that on the relevant date, respondent No. 1 was driving the bus from Panipat to Delhi and he saw near Bohalgarh that a canter was lying overturned. Oil was flowing from that vehicle. The driver applied brakes. On account of the oil on the road, the bus slipped and struck against the deceased who was standing near the truck. The driver of the bus was not at fault. The appellants filed replication to the written statement alleging that the defence taken by the respondents was false. The following issues were settled by the Tribunal: - - "1. Whether Ram, Avtar died on account of rash or negligent driving of Bus No. HNS -2972 by Gopal Singh driver respondent No. 1? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom? OPP Relief " 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre because income of the deceased was not assessed and nothing was explained as to how a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 60,000/ - was awarded. He said that the age of the deceased was proved to be 23 years as copy of his matriculation Certificate showing the date of birth as 07.02.1967 was produced on record as Ex. PF. The employer Loku Lal, owner of the truck appeared as PWS and stated that he used to pay Rs. 1100/1200 per month to the deceased besides Rs. 20/ - per day whenever he went out of station. Learned counsel however chose to stick only to the evidence which suited the appellant and ignored the fact that the Tribunal had categorically held that certificate Ex. PW5/14 was produced by Loku Lal PW5 showing that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 600/ - per month. However, no receipt regarding payment of salary could be shown by the employer. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 600/ - per month besides Rs. 20 per day whenever he went out of station. It stands established on record. However, since nothing was calculated on the basis of the income, it is not deducible as to what was taken to be the income of the deceased when he used to be out of town for which he was paid Rs. 20 per day as diet, charges. His employer even did not say as to approximately for how many days in a month, the deceased used to remain put of station. The income of the deceased is thus to be taken as Rs. 600 per month.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was supporting his parents and three minor siblings. The elder brothers were married and were living separately. Thereafter he contended that the personal expenses out of the income should be deducted accordingly. This argument is too far fetched because it cannot he presumed that the parents and all the minor siblings were dependant on the deceased who had a meagre income Rs. 600/ - per month, The appellants being the parents can at best, be taken to be the only dependants. Taking one third as personal expenses, the remaining income of the deceased came to Rs. 4800 per year. Applying the multiplier according to his age, which should be of 18, the amount of compensation on account of income comes to Rs. 86,400/ -. It is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that nothing was awarded towards future prospects, loss of love and for affection and funeral charges etc. So far as future prospects are concerned, nothing is being awarded because the deceased was having meagre income and he would have married within a couple of years if he had not died and would have supported his family. Also, the appellants, who were having three more sons could not be said to be dependant on the deceased for their entire life. Towards loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - is awarded and towards funeral expenses etc., an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - is given. The amount of compensation is therefore enhanced from Rs. 60,000/ - to Rs. 1,21,400/ - with interest at the rate of 12% per annum of the enhanced amount. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.;