L PALLEY RAM Vs. P K JANARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An accident took place on 27-2-1978 at about 4 p.m. near Minto Bridge When deceased Jai Bhagwan was driving the bicycle and a Military vehicle No. 42615 came from behind and hit the cyclist. He was rushed to the Irwin Hospital where he died. Public Witness 2, Dr. Vishnu Kumar has stated that Jai Bhagwan died because of intera cranial haemorrhage and fracture of scalp consequent to his head injuries. The claimants who are the parents of Jai Bhagwan have filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 33,000.00 as compensation. They have examined Shri V.B. Chaudbary, Research Officer. Shri Chaudbary appeared as Public Witness 3 and Dhani Ram Public Witness 4. Both the witnesses appeared as eye witnesses and deposed to the facts of the accident. They have identified the military vehicle which knocked down the cyclist. On the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was fully established that the vehicle No. 482615 reached the place of accident at a fast speed and had knocked down the deceased cyclist from behind at the time when he was going on the correct side of the road. After considering the entire evidence the Tribunal found that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the said vehicle. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applied here as the cyclist was hit from behind and he died immediately.

(2.) The deceased was of 24 years old at the time of accident. He was working as a Salesman with the firm called 'Delhi Paints Corporation' on the monthly salary of Rs. 125.00 . The Tribunal held that the deceased was contributing about Rs. 50.00 per month to his family and taking a multiplier of fifteen came to the conclusion that a compensation of Rs. 8,075.00 should be paid to the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award to the date of the realization. I have gone through the evidence on record and I find that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence. The finding that Vehicle No. 482615 was being driven at the very fast speed and has knocked down the deceased from behind was fully established on evidence. The findings of the Tribunal are upheld.

(3.) However, the Tribunal has gone wrong in arriving at the figure of compensation to be paid. He has not considered the fact that the deceased was only 24 years old and was working as a Salesman. He has the whole life before him as he has almost begun his career at this age. The progress of his further promotion and getting additional income had totally been overlooked by the Tribunal. Multiplier of 15 however has to be upheld not on the ground that the deceased would have lived 15 years more but the parents would have lived 15 years. The claimants are the parents.