S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE challenge in appeal here is to the award of Rs. 35,280/ - as compensation to the mother, widow and children of Kishan Chand deceased and Rs. 50,400/ - to the mother, widow and children of Lakhbir Singh deceased, who were both killed in an accident with a tractor -trolley at Malout. This accident occurred at about 6.15 p.m. on September 19, 1982 near the turning of the old bus stand at Malout. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by Girdhari Lal while driving the tractor PBX 3208. Liability for the compensation awarded was fastened upon Girdhari Lal as also Ram Narain and Sham Sunder, the owners of the tractor. The insurance company was absolved from liability as Girdhari Lal who caused the accident did not hold a valid driving licence.
(2.) IN appeal here, an attempt was, in the first instance, made to question the identity of the offending tractor. Capital was sought to be made of the fact that in the claim application, the number of the offending tractor was given as PBS 3208, whereas the tractor in respect of which compensation has been awarded, was found by the Tribunal to be PBX 3208. On the face of it, this is but an attempt to take advantage of what was apparently a mere clerical error. It is pertinent to note that the tractor, after causing the accident was left at the spot and it was from there that it was recovered by the police and later taken to the police station where it was examined by the police mechanic. The engine number and the chassis number of the tractor as given in the report of the police mechanic, AW Manjit Singh, is the same as that of the tractor PBX 3208, which admittedly belongs to Respondents Ram Narain and Sham Sunder. The error, on the part of the claimants in mentioning the number of the offending tractor, on the claim application as PBS 3208 instead of PBX 3208 is thus not a matter of any consequence. It would also be pertinent to note that no such point finds mention in the order of the Tribunal. It is apparent, therefore, that it was for the first time in appeal that such a plea was thought out and sought to be raised. Faced with this situation, Mr. L.M. Suri, counsel for the tractor owners, sought to question their vicarious liability for the compensation awarded on the plea that it had not been established that Girdhari Lal was their employee or had driven the tractor either on the business of the tractor owners or even with their knowledge and consent. This is again a contention wholly devoid of merit. A reference to the evidence on record would show that the only witness examined against the claimants was RW 1 Girdhari Lal, who denied that he was the driver of the tractor or that any accident had been caused by him while driving it. The falsity of this statement is amply brought out by the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidharbaha, as also his own admission in cross -examination that he had been challaned and convicted for causing the death of Kishan Singh and Lakhbir Singh by his rash and negligent driving of the tractor. It is significant to note that he made no mention nor did he care to explain how and in what circumstances he drove the tractor when the accident occurred. As for the tractor owners themselves, namely, Ram Narain and Sham Sunder, they no doubt raised the plea in their written statement that Girdhari Lal was not their driver, but neither of them came into the witness box to depose to this effect or to explain how it came to be that Girdhari Lal drove their tractor and caused this accident. The law is well settled as held in Lajwanti v. Haryana State, 1985 ACJ 307 (P &H): There is a presumption, rebuttable no doubt, that a vehicle is driven on the master's business and by his authorised agent or servant and consequently the owner or master is vicariously liable for the negligence of such servant or agent committed in the course of his employment. This was a case where the bus driver and conductor had left the bus unattended at the bus stand. While standing there, the bus was driven away by a stranger who caused an accident with it. It was held that the State, the owner of the bus, was vicariously liable for the accident. Applying this ratio to the present case, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Tribunal rightly held Ram Narain and Sham Sunder - -the owners of the offending tractor - -to be vicariously liable for the compensation awarded.
(3.) THE claimants, on their part, seek enhanced compensation. A reference to the record would show that Kishan Chand deceased was about 48 -years of age at the time of his death. He was a revenue patwari and his total emoluments, at the time of his death, were little over Rs 880/ - per month. He died leaving behind his mother, his widow and three sons, who were all dependent upon him. Kishan Chand had another ten years' service before attaining the age of superannuation. Considering the nature of the post held by the deceased and the work done by him, it is likely that even after retirement, he could have been gainfully employed for some more years though his emoluments may not have been as much as those while in service. Taking, therefore, an overall view of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 ACJ 170 (P &H) 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied and the dependency deserves to be assessed at around Rs. 6,000/ - per annum. So computed, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 96,000/ - which may be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rs. one lac only). The compensation payable to the claimants in the case of Kishan Chand deceased is accordingly enhanced to this extent.;