Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) THIS judgment of ours would dispose of this and the connected L.P.A. Nos. 755 to 758 of 1984 and 1051 of 1984, as well as cross -objection Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 10 of 1985 in the aforesaid appeals, respectively, as the same arise out of the common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed: On 5th December, 1979, at 8.00 p.m. an accident took place on the Rohtak -Hissar National Highway near the link road to village Bahu -Jamalpur. Tara Chand, deceased, who was coming on a scooter DLH 9814, from the side of Rohtak had turned to go on to the link road, when the car DLE 4174 came from the opposite direction, that is, from the side of Hissar and hit into the scooter. Tara Chand sustained multiple injuries, as a result of which he died at the Medical College, Rohtak, on 23rd December, 1979. Six claim petitions on behalf of widow Bhagwani Devi, four sons - -Rajbir Singh, Ved Bir Singh, Ranbir Singh and Ishwar Singh and daughter Kamla Devi, were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 40,000/ - each, on the plea that the car was driven by Krishan Kumar, Respondent No. 1, at a very high speed and it was as a result of his negligence that the accident occurred. It was also averred that the deceased was about 56 years of age and was in robust health, that his monthly income from business and agricultural land was Rs. 3,000/ - per month and that the widow, sons and daughter were entitled to compensation in the amount of Rs. 40,000/ - each. These claim petitions were resisted by the Respondents.
(2.) ON the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal found that it was a case of contributory negligence, inasmuch as both the car driver and the deceased were equally to blame. In view of this finding, a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - was awarded as compensation to Bhagwani Devi widow, Kamla Devi daughter and Rajbir Singh disabled son. The claim petitions of the other three sons were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the Tribunal, the widow, sons and daughter filed separate appeals - -F.A.O. Nos. 40, 37, 38, 41, 39 and 42 in this Court. On consideration of the evidence, the learned single Judge reversed the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence and fastened the blame of the accident wholly upon the car driver. But so far as the amount of compensation which was determined by the Tribunal is concerned, the same was found to be adequate. Consequently, the appeals of the widow, the daughter and Rajbir Singh were allowed and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 60,000/ -. The learned single Judge further held that out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - each shall be paid to Kamla Devi and Rajbir Singh and the balance to the widow Bhagwani Devi. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeals of the three sons, namely, Ved Bir Singh, Ranbir Singh and Ishwar Singh were dismissed. Still dissatisfied the present L.P.As. have been filed by the claimants. Cross -objections have been filed on behalf of the Respondents also.
(3.) MR . L.M. Suri, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the learned single Judge had erred in applying the multiplier of 6. According to the learned Counsel, the deceased was aged 56 years and enjoying a good robust health and that the multiplier should have been at least 10. The learned Counsel further submitted that the deceased was earning about Rs. 2,500/ - per month and contributing Rs. 2,000/ - per month towards his family. On the basis of these submissions, the learned Counsel urged that the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge was quite inadequate. In support of his contention, on the question of multiplier, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the judgments of this Court in Sher Singh alias Shera v. Mukand Lal : 1984 ACJ 148 (P and H) and Bimla Devi v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation : 1984 ACJ 473(P and H) On the other hand, Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submitted that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation at all as the brick -kiln in which the deceased was the partner and the agricultural land which he was cultivating have been left behind and that the claimants have not been able to show that there has been any diminution in the income of the family after the death of the deceased. On the question of multiplier, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned single Judge had rightly applied the multiplier of 6 years in the instant case. In support of his first contention, Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh relied on a single Bench judgment of this Court in Gurdial Kaur v. Atma Singh, (1985) 87 PLR 602 .;