- (1.) ON 20.10.94, at about 8.30 a.m., in morning ,son of appellants died of injuries sustained in an accident involving tanker No. RJQ 4290. Parents of the deceased appellants, demanding compensation Rs.9,00,000/- as loss of earning which could have been available to them and Rs.1,11,000/- on other counts, instituted claim petition No.102/95. According to claim, the deceased their son, was 18 years at that time on 20.10.94 at about 8.30 a.m., after attending his ill mother, admitted in hospital, was coming on cycle and was on his right side when from behind him, claiming tanker RJQ 4290 over run him and the accident occurred only because of the negligence of the driver of the tanker which owned by respondent No.2 and insured with R3. Describing average age of family members as 75 years, claimed (i) Rs.9,00,000/- as dependency on earning, (ii) Rs.700/- as cost of the damaged cycle etc. (iii) funeral and other expenses Rs.10,000/-, (iv) for agony, Rs.1,00,000/-, totaling Rs.10,11,000/-. Asserted that deceased doing wooden carpentry and furniture work, was earning Rs.2500 3000 per month. R2 the insurer admitting insurance, disputed all above and asserted that the amount claimed is inordinately exaggerated, that the driver had no valid license and the vehicle driven in contravention of policy conditions, insurer disowned any liability.
(2.) THE driver and owner of the vehicle, in the reply, averred that driver was cautiously carefully driving but the deceased, while crossing road, suddenly came from right side of the vehicle and as he suddenly tried to cross the road, so the accident occurred. Also stated that as the deceased was a student, he could not have and not was earning. Stated that the driver possessed valid license and that expenses and other amounts stated, are immaterial. For appellant claimants, oral evidence is of father of the deceased, appellant No.2 and his brother-in-law PW 2 and Shri Ghanshyam PW 3. Driver respondent DW 1 deposes that neither vehicle struck nor he driving speedily or fastly and that no frontal collision occurred and the deceased crossing the road, struck at the back body of the tanker. Presented are copies of the FIR, police challan, post-mortem, insurance etc. Learned tribunal inferred that accident occurred only due to rashness and negligence driving of tanker by R1 deceased 18 years died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident cycle etc. damaged. Regarding earnings, learned judge arrived at conclusions that he at best was working with his father at home and not earning Rs.100/- thus the claimant appellants not and could not have been dependent on him. Considering age, assessed dependency of parents and Rs.700/- and using the multiplier of 16, awarded Rs.1,40,000/- towards dependency and Rs.13000/- on other heads, thus totaling Rs.1,53,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants extensively reading deposition of witnesses, argued that dependency taken, is grossly on lower side. Submitted that deceased was doing wood carpenter work and even assuming that he was working with his father only and that too, at home, still definitely, he was earning or doing productive work worth not less than Rs.100/- per day. Argued that for non-plausible reasons, dependency is taken only at Rs.700/- and multiplier used, is also 16, whereas ought to have been 18. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that for a boy of 16 years age in the year, 1994, earning Rs.100/- per day can, in no way, be acceptable, particularly when he also was a student as stated by father. Argued that still considering all the factors and likely normal happening, the tribunal has assumed dependency at Rs.700/- per month which not is on lower side. Considering arguments, had a careful look at the evidence produced and judgment assailed. Proved is occurrence and accident and due to negligence of driver.
(3.) PER father of deceased P1, he himself doing carpenter work, was earning Rs.150/- per day and that son also was a student in a school. According to witness, he did job of furniture making and other wooden work and the son also of furniture work, including door frame who earning Rs.100/- daily, and used to give this amount to him. When father who per him in late thirties at that time, doing same work, was earning Rs.150/- per day, then, in absence of specific acceptable evidence, is very hard to accept earning of son as Rs.100/- per day who relatively less skilled and at best in learning process. In deciding total compensation, also is relevant that in normal course and because of very likely events, what portion of earning, of who, for whom, upto what time or how many years and to what extent, dependency likely can be. Taking all these into account, in the opinion of the Court, dependency of parents taken at Rs.700/- and compensation awarded using multiplier 16, seems to be very just and reasonable. In other heads, awarded are Rs.13000/-. The conclusions and reasons of the tribunal are very reasoned one. On given facts and above circumstances, total compensation Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% being just and reasonable, is not to be interfered with. Therefore, and for the above reasons, this appeal for enhancement of compensation quantum does not have any force and is liable to be rejected. The appeal is rejected.;