- (1.) THE matter her concerns the award of Rs. 4,32,000/- as. compensation to the mother, widow and children of Sqn. Ldr. N. D. Gupta, who was run over and killed by a military, truck. This happened at about 9. 30 A. M. on May 31, 1982 at the crossing of Sectors, 20, 29, 32 and 33, Chandigarh. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Military truck BRX-8925.
(2.) IT was the case of the claimants that Sqn. Ldr. N. D. Gupta deceased was going towards the Air Force Station, Chandigarh on his Luna (moped) CHH -586 when at the crossing of Sectors 20, 29, 32 and 33 a Military truck BRX-8925 came from behind at a very fast speed and hit into the Luna as a result of which both the Luna and the de- ceased, who was driving it, fell down and the truck then went over Sqn. Ldr. Gupta killing him at the spot
(3.) THE respondents, including Gurdev Singh, the driver of the said Military truk, denied that any accident had been caused by this truck The plea put forth being that the truck had been stopped by the police at the Air Force Crossing and was then taken back to the scene of occurrence where it was photographed and a false case was then registered against the truck driver Gurdev Singh. 4 The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW. 5 Devi Singh who deposed that he was the driver of the official Cat of Shri Sat Pal Kansal, Inspector. Excise Department and Was present at the said crossing on the day of the accident whits Shri Sat Pal Kansal was making a check for goods tax when he saw Sqn. Ldr. N. D. Gupta deceased coming there on his Luna from the side of Sector 24 and proceeding towards the Air Force Station. The Military truck came from behind at a very fast speed and hit the Luna on its left side and then ran over the deceased. This truck was being driven by Gurdev Singh who speed away after causing this accident. On the instructions of Shri Sat Pal Kansal, however, he pursued the truck with his ear and caught up it et the. Air Port Chowk where the truck stopped on account of the drums and the, police there. The truck was then brought back to the place of incident 5. Next to note is the testimony of P. W. 6 Dr. B. D. Chug who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sqn. 1 dr. Gupta deceased. He noticed seven injuries on the dead Body of the deceased. All these injuries are clearly consistent with the deceased having suffered them while being run over by a truck. 6. To counter the claimants version, the truck driver PW. 1, Gurdev Singh came into the witness box and denied that his truck had been involved in any accident. He stated, however, that his truck had been stopped by the police at the Air Force Chowk and brought back to the place of accident. It is pertinent to note that in cross- examination he admitted that the Court of Enquiry held against him relating to this accident, disciplinary action had been taken against him To corroborate Gurdev Singh, there is the testimony of R. W. 2 Mohinder Singh Gill who deposed that he was travelling in the truck on the day in question and he too stated that it was not involved in any accident. It was further his testimony too that near the Air Force Chowk the truck was asked to stop by a car that came from behind, The police then took the respondent with a truck while he went and reported to his seniors of 38 Boarder Road Task Force that the truck had been taken away by the police. This witness too in cross-examination admitted that there was a Court of Enquiry relating to this accident against Gurdev Singh culminated in Gurdev Singh being sentenced to 28 days rigorous imprisonment on account of this accident. He stated that he had appeared as a witness in this enquiry on behalf of Gurdev Singh. 7. It will be seen that PW 5 Devi Singh has come forth with a very plausible explanation for being at the place of occurrence at the time of accideat. He has not been shown to be in any manner interested in the claimants or inimical towards the truck driver Gurdev Singh. Further, counsel for the appellant could point to no circumstances or the material which could create any doubt with regard to the varacity of this witness. Not without significance there is further fact that has come on record relating to this accident namely the Court of Enquiry held by the Military authorities where a finding was returned against Gardev Singh culminating in his being sentenced for the said offence. 8. Taking therefore, an overall view of the totality of the circumstances of the case in the light of the evidence on record no exception can indeed be taken to the finding of negligence recorded against Gurdev Singh, which is accordingly, hereby affirmed. 9. Next to consider is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. 10. According to the testimony of PW-2 S. P. S. Walia, Master Warrant Officer of the Air Force Station, Chandigarh, the date of birth of Sqn. Ldr. Gupta was August 9, 1944, which would mean that he was about 38 year of age at the time of his death He died leaving behind his young widow Geeta Gupta and two minor children a son and a daughter besides his widowed mother, who were all dependent upon him. 11. According to the last pay certificate of Sqn. Ldr. Gupta his total emoluments were Rs. 3,572/- per month. 12. It is now well settled, as was laid down In Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kayr, (1979) 81 P. L. R. 1, that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person, concerned and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then have to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. The suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependants, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors, such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicapted or clamity, the prospects of remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependents and their developing independent source of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependents on account of the death of the person concerned. 13. A Division Bench of our High Court in Asha Rani v. Union of India, (1982) 84 P. L. R. 486, has held that the normal multiplier should be sixteen in such cases. It was so held after taking note of Lachhman Singh's case. (supra ). 14. Looking to the circumstances and situation of the deceased and the claimants, it must in addition also to borne In mind that had the deceased lived, there were open to him prospects of further advancement in his career, though, at the same time, being in the Air Force, this always carried with it a more than usual element of risk. Besides this being in service with the armed forces, in addition to monetary emoluments, there were also additional facilities available to him. Taking these and the other factors as set forth in Lachhman Singh's case (supra) into account it would be fair and reasonable to assess the dependancy of the claimants at Rs. 3,000/- per month with a multiplier of 16. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out of Rs. 5,76,000/ -. The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly chanced to this sum i. e. Rs 5,76,000/- which they shall be entitled to alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application, till the date of the payment of the amount awarded Out of amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each shall be paid to the childern of Sqn. Ldr. Gupta deceased and Rs. 50,000/- to his mother. The balance shall be payable to his widow Mrs. Geeta Gupta. 15. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed while the Cross Objection filed by the claimants are accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs in these proceddings. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/ -.;