PARAS RAM Vs. MAKKAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimants under Section 110-D ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the 'Act') is directed against the awardof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 26 July19.88 in Suit No. 186/81.

(2.) On 30/07/1977 at about 2 P.M. Surinder Kumar, son of theappellants, aged about 13 years, along with one Ved Prakash, both on a cycleleft from their residence at Prithviraj Road from the service road. They saw atruck bearing registration No. DLL 8003, emerging from Tughlak Road sideon the Tughlak Lane, driven by respondent No. 1, at a high speed. Thetruck took a sharp turn on the right hand side towards service road and itdashed against the cycle. Surinder Kumar and Ved Prakash fell down fromtheir cycle. Surinder Kumar died on the spot and Ved Prakash received injurieson his right' leg and other parts of his body. It is the case of the claimantsthat after the accident respondent No. 1 tried to run away from the spot butwas apprehended by some persons, who appeared as witnesses before theTribunal. Before the Tribunal, the claimants claimed that the deceased was astudent of 8th Class and belonged to a family which had the history of longevity of life. Accordingly, the claimets made a claim of Rs. 1 lakh againstthe respondents. Respondents 1 & 2, the driver and the owner of the . truckrespectively, did not contest the .petition. It was contested only by respondentNo. 3, the Insurance Company, on diverse pleas.

(3.) The learned Tribunal framed the issues on the pleadings of theparties. The parties led their evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunalheld that respondent No. 1 was driving the truck rashly and negligentlycausing the accident as a result of which deceased Surinder Kumar died; thatdeceased was 12 years and three months old at the time of the accidentand would have started earning after about ten years or so and thus wouldhave started providing help to his parents. The Tribunal found that thedeceased being only 12 years old, the parents would have been more than 45years of age by the time the deceased would have started earning. Taking intoaccount all these factors, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that 16 was yearswas an appropriate multiplier to be adopted in the case of the appellants. Asregards the dependency of the appellants, the Tribunal opined that thedeceased, after completion of his studies would have started earning Rs. 1000.00to Rs. 1,500.00 per month or so and would have contributed Rs. 250.00 permonth to the family. Thus, the yearly dependency was determined Rs. 3,000.00.Accordingly, the Tribunal computed the compensation payable to the appellantsat Rs. 48,000.00 by applying the multiplier of 16. Interest claimed on thecompensation amount, however, was not allowed.