HARBHAJAN KAUR Vs. RAM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I shall dispose of above two appeals. Smt. Harbhanjan Kaur & Others have filed F.A.O. No.116 of 1995 for enhancement of compensation and the other appeal being F.A.O. No.152 of 1995 has been filed by the insurance company on the issue that its liability was limited to Rs.50,000/- and not unlimited as held by the Tribunal.

(2.) The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to the appellants. The deceased Sh. Ram Prakash, who died due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 was a self-employed person, having a workshop of repairing spare parts of pressure cookers. He also used to prepare such spare parts. The evidence of his work as produced before the Tribunal shows that earlier he was having three lathe machines and four employees, when his workshop was at 6, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road. Later on, he had shifted from that place and started work at Punjabi Bagh where he had only one lathe machine. The family of deceased consisted of his wife and three children and was living in a rented accommodation paying amount of Rs.50/- per month. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that deceased was earning at least Rs.100/- per day.

(3.) The learned Tribunal after considering the entire evidence and the statement of wife of the deceased that the deceased used to give her Rs.1,000/- per month in installment for household expenses, came to conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs.1,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the dependency of the family was arrived at Rs.666.67, that is, above Rs.8,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of death. The learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and calculated total dependency of Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and directed that this amount of Rs.1,35,000/- be paid along with 12 per cent interest per annum. However, the appellants were held not entitled to this interest for certain period since the appellants were not diligent in prosecuting the petition and did not lead evidence.