SARUPI DEVI Vs. KATAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of one Mr. Ran Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants 2 to 5 who had died in a road accident on 25.7.1982 allegedly caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The facts in short giving rise to this appeal are: On 25.7.1982, the deceased was sleeping in front of his house away from the road when oil tanker owned by respondent No. 2 and being driven by respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent No. 3 ran over the deceased resulting in his death at the spot. The deceased was 45 years of age at the time of the death and was an agriculturist cultivating 12 bighas of ancestral land and allegedly taking another 4 acres of agriculture land on 'Batai' for cultivation. Claiming that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving by the tanker by its driver, the appellants filed the petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation from the respondents. In the written statement filed by the driver of the vehicle it was stated that the accident was not caused because of his rash and negligent driving but some persons in the village with whom the driver had a fight took away his tanker and it was because of the driving of the tanker by the said persons that the accident had taken place. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle was insured by it but its liability was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. No other plea was taken by the Insurance Company in its written statement. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(2.) While the appellants produced witnesses to prove not only that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker by its driver but also to prove the income of the deceased. No evidence whatsoever was led by any of the respondents despite opportunities granted for this purpose. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker by its driver and as the deceased had died because of the injuries sustained in the said accident, the appellants were entitled to receive compensation from the respondents. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month and deducting 1 /3rd of the same towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased was taken at Rs. 1,000/- per month or say Rs. 12,000/- per annum, Applying the multiplier of 8, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 96,000/- in favour of the appellants. As already mentioned above this award has now been challenged by the appellants by filing the present appeal. Respondents including the Insurance Company have not challenged any of the findings given by the Tribunal.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that while assuming the income of the deceased the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. It is submitted that even assuming the income of the deceased in 1982 was Rs. 1,500/- per month, as held by the Tribunal, the Tribunal considering his age ought to have doubled the income for purposes of deciding the dependency to the family of the deceased. It is also the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased was only 45 years of age at the time of the death and the Tribunal, therefore, ought to have applied the multiplier in terms of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.