UPDESH KAUR Vs. JAGRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Mr.Raghubir Singh Kohli husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants 2 and 3. The petition claiming compensation was originally filed by the widow, father, mother and minor sons of the deceased on the ground that the deceased had died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record came to a finding that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the scooter as well as on the part of the tempo driver. The Tribunal held both of them responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% each. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2500.00 per month and deducting 1/3rd from the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency to the family was taken at Rs.1650.00 per month. The deceased was 42 years of age at the time of death and applying the multiplier of 15 in terms of the Second Schedule, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.2,97,000.00 to be the loss of dependency to the family. As the deceased was held to be 50% liable for the accident, the Tribunal directed only 50% of such compensation to be paid to the appellants. A sum of Rs.25,000.00 had already been paid by way of interim compensation and the balance amount of Rs.1,23,500.00 was, therefore, directed to be paid alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. As already mentioned above, aggrieved by the award the appellants have filed the present appeal.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was equally responsible for the accident and the appellants were entitled to total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased besides himself had three major persons in his family which was comprised of his wife, his parents and two minor children and, therefore, the personal expenses which the deceased might have been spending upon himself could not have been taken at more than 1/5th of the income of the deceased and for this he places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831.

(3.) Insofar as the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not equally responsible for the accident is concerned, I find that the only person who had deposed about the tempo being rash and negligent in the accident is appellant no.1 herself. As against her evidence, the driver of the offending vehicle appeared as his own witness and stated that the tempo was stationery when the deceased coming from behind hit the tempo from the back and thus the scooter had almost gone under the tempo and injuries were received by him as well as his wife as a result of which the deceased died the next day. From the statement made by appellant no.1 as well as by the driver, it cannot be ascertained as to who was responsible for the accident. The only thing which, therefore, required to be examined is the mechanical inspection report of the vehicles which may throw some light as to how the accident took place. The mechanical inspection report of the tempo shows that it had a dent at its back, the number plate was also bent because of impact and the headlight and brakes were in order. Inspection report of the scooter shows that the handle was broken, headlight was broken, front wheel mudguard was damaged, left side leg guard damaged and left side dickey was also damaged. The fact that the handle and headlight of the scooter had been broken and front portion of the tempo had no sign of an impact suggests that the scooter might have hit the tempo from the back. I am, therefore, in agreement with the Tribunal that the deceased was equally responsible for causing the accident which resulted in his death.