AMARJIT KAUR Vs. VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross appeals are directed against the judgement of a learned Single Judge of this court deciding the question of compensation payable to the heirs and legal representatives of one Ajit Singh, who was killed as a result of being run over by a, motor truck. The accident. occurred on June 13, 1963. The truck belonged to M/s. Gopal Singh Ghanshyam Dass, appellant in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969, and respondent No. 3 in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969. The truck was being driven by Bakshi Ram, respondent No. 2 in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969 and respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969. The vehicle was insured with M/s. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969 and the second appellant in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969. The legal representatives and heirs of Ajit Singh deceased are Smt. Amarjit Kaur, widow of Ajit Singh, Harcharan Kaur and Rajinder Kaur, minor daughters of Ajit Singh, and Manmohan Singh, Darsh Deep Singh and Rabinder Singh, minor sons of Ajit Singh. They are appellants in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969 and respondents 2 to 7 in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969.

(2.) Smt. Amarjit Kaur and her children applied to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under .Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for award of compensation for the death of Ajit Singh alleging that it was due to. the rash and negligent driving of the motor truck that Ajit Singh got run over and died. It was submitted that Ajit Singh's monthly income at the time of his death was Rs. 1200 P.M., he was 40 years of age, he was running a motor workshop and planning to put up a factory, being a qualified and experienced mechanical engineer, thus having great prospects in life. It was further alleged that he purchased a plot measuring 20001 sq. yards with the intention of putting up his factory and was in correspondence with his brother to join him in this venture. His gross income was Rs. 3000 to Rs. 4000 P.M. He was having a good standard of life and educating his children in a good school. Taking all these circumstances into view damages to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs were claimed.

(3.) The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced betore it came to the conclusion that the loss of pecuniary advantage to the family of Ajit Singh was to the extent of Rs. 31,800 on an expectancy- of life for Ajit Singh for a further period of 15 years. After coming to the conclusion that the normal expectancy of life would be upto the age of 60 years but keeping in view the uncertainties of life, 5 years had to be deducted from the period of 20 years. From this amount of Rs. 31,800 further 10 per cent was deducted by the Tribunal on the principle that, Rs. 31,800 would have been received by the family in 15 years but a lump sum payment was now to be made. Admittedly, Amarjit Kaur had received Rs. 14,000 on account of an insurance policy on the life of Ajit Singh. Tills amount was also deducted from the compensation assessed. The Tribunal, therefore, made an award of Rs. 8,620 in favour of Amarjit Kaur and her children payable by the insurance company, the driver of the track and the owner of the truck. Appeals were preferred both by Amarjit Kaur and her children on the one hand and the insurance company and the owner of the truck on the other to the High Court. These cross appeals were disposed of by a common judgment given by a learned Single Judge of this court on April 1, 1969. The learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation payable and awarded a net compensation of Rs. 23,895 limiting the liability of the insurance company to Rs. 20,000. Both sides being aggrieved have filed the present appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent.