J.V.GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' appeal against whom a decree for Rs. 45,700/- has been passed by the trial Court by way of damages.
(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the murder of Sohan Singh son of Assa Singh. Plaintiff No. 1 Rattan Kaur is widow ; plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are the sons and daughters and plaintiff No. 7 is the father of the said Sohan Singh, deceased. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are minors residing with their mother, plaintiff No. 1, and, thus, she acted as their natural guardian in filing the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants, Maluk Singh and Surain Singh, murdered Sohan Singh on October 26, 1972. Maluk Singh was charged under Section 302 whereas Surain Singh was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were found guilty of the charges. Maluk Singh, accused, was sentenced to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- whereas Surain Singh, accused, was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated September 7, 1973. The plaintiffs averred that Sohan Singh, deceased, possessed very robust and sound health. He was about 57 years of age at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Had he not been murdered, he would have lived the age of 100 years which is the normal span of life in the deceased's family. Assa Singh, the deceased's father was still alive and was aged about 103 years. Khushal Singh, the grandfather of the deceased died at the age of about 104 years and other members of his family died after more than 100 years of age. The deceased was a Sarpanch and held a high status in the village and the locality. He was the only source of income and was supporting a large family including the plaintiffs. The defendants by the brutal murder of Sohan Singh, deprived the plaintiffs of the necessities of life, pecuniary benefits, company, comfort, love and affection and the source of income. Had Sohan Singh not been murdered by the defendants, tie would have earned about Rs. 60,000/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the remaining period of his life at least for 43 years as the normal span of life in the deceased's family was over 160 years. However, the plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages as follows: 1. Damages for the loss of comforts,affection and company Rs. 10,000.00 2. Damages for the loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 90,000.00 The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a joint written statement, inter alia on the ground that they did not murder the said Sohan Singh, as alleged. It was admitted that they were found guilty of the said offence' and convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozspur. It was further pleaded that Sohan Singh was about 65 years of age at the time of his death. He was not in good health and was leading a retired life. The land in his name was cultivated by his sons and that Sohan Singh and his family members all lived on the income of the land cultivated by the sons of Sohan Singh. It was denied that the said Sohan Singh earned Rs. 20,000/- per annum or that he would have lived the age of 100 years. He was of course a Sarpanch, but he did not earn anything for his family. Thus, the plaintiffs did not suffer any pecuniary loss on account of the death of Sohan Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff No. 4 is the son and plaintiff No. 5 is the daughter of Sohan Singh, deceased? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are the dependents of Sohan Singh, deceased? 3. Whether the defendant or any of them caused the death of Sohan Singh? 4. What damages the plaintiffs or any of them are entitled from the defendants? 5. Relief. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It was held that the plaintiffs were dependents of the said Sohan Singh, deceased. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 were discussed together. It was found that there was no dispute about the fact, which otherwise stands proved from the evidence on record, that Sohan Singh, deceased, was murdered by the defendants. The trial Court also observed. Even no arguments were advanced on this by the learned Counsel for the defendants. Regarding the quantum of damages, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 45,700/- detailed before: 1. For the loss of comforts, affections and company of the deceased Rs. 10,000.00 2. Pecuniary loss Rs. 18,000.00 3. Pecuniary loss on account of the deprivation of the managerial capacity of the deceased Rs. 17,700.00 ------------- Rs. 45,700.00 Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant have come up in appeal to this Court. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that Surain Singh, appellant, was attributed only a lalkara and convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he could not be held liable for the payment of any damages. It was also contended that in any case, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-on account of the loss of comforts, affection and company due to the death of Sohan Singh, as allowed by the trial Court, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 Punjab Law Reporter 1. The learned Counsel further argued that the deceased was of 70 years of age at the time of his death. Under the circumstances, his normal expectancy of life could not be taken to be 100 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 15 (fifteen) was unreasonable. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the deceased left behind five minor children. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs could not be held to be excessive in any manner; rather it was on the lower side because the trial Court has calculated the pecuniary loss on the basis that an agricultural labourer ordinarily earns about Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/-per annum, which according to the learned Counsel, was wholly unjustified. No labourer could be employed at the rate of Rs. 3/- per day in the year 1972. It was also maintained that in addition to the compensation, the plaintiffs were also entitled to interest on the amount decreed, from the date of the suit till realisation.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification to interfere with the amount of damages allowed by the trial Court.;