KELA DEVI Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the award of Shri P.P. Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, D/- 29-9-1977. The deceased Ram Singh was going on his cycle to Delhi via Rohtak Road at about 8 a.m. on 11-4-1967. A private bus belonging to Respondent 2, M/s. New Transporters was coming from the opposite direction in a great speed. In an attempt to overtake the truck it went to the extreme right side and hit Ram Singh. Ram Singh died on the spot. The claimants, his widow and minor son filed the claim petition. In her evidence before the Tribunal the widow stated that another child was born posthumously to her. Ram Singh was working as a Class IV employee in Nirman Bhavan. At the time of death his salary was Rs. 145.50. His age was around 29 years at the time of the death. The claimants had claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 Respondent I. Driver and Respondent 2, New Transporters were served but did not appear. Respondent 3, Insurance Company, appears to have alone contested the claim. Respondent 3 was originally M/s. South India Insurance Company Ltd. After the nationalisation it was merged with New India Assurance Company Ltd.

(2.) The Tribunal has noted that the written statement filed by M/s. New India Assurance Company was not a proper written statement. It was a copy of the written statement filed by the said Insurance Company in some other accident case. What was done was some portions were erased and some over writings were done without even caring to answer the claim petition. The paras did not tally. There was bald denial of the. accident or the responsibility of the driver. The written statement was filed on behalf of all the respondents. It has come to notice in number of eases that where a vehicle is comprehensively insured the Insurance Company contests the claim on behalf of the owner of the Vehicle as well as the Driver also. Normally one written statement is filed and Counsel for the Insurance Company alone argues the matter. This is what has happened in this case. The Tribunal was wrong in holding that no notice can be taken of this attempt to file the written statement on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. Perhaps this is the reason why in spite of the service Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear before the Tribunal. From the evidence of Driver of the Bus (RW 1) the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the version of the accident given by the claimants was correct. He, however, disagreed with the Driver that the truck hit the bus and ran away. He found the story unbelievable considering the fact that there were no dents or any damage on the left side of the bus. The light of the bus on the right side was broken. It was because of the impact of the bus hitting the cycle. The deceased was about 29 years old. As a Government servant he would have retired at the age of 58 years. On the basis of the salary of Rs. 145.00 which he was drawing at the time of the death the claim for Rs. 50,000.00 was made. The learned Judge took the dependency to only fifteen years holding that the "prospects of re-marriage of petitoner No. 1 (widow) are not non-existent." It is rather strange to fix the multiplier on the basis of a chance of the widow getting re-married particularly where there was no evidence. She had two children of the marriage and it would have been very difficult for her to get re-married with two children. Even if she was to be married, it was reasonable to hold that the expenses of bringing up of the children and their education should have been an important consideration in the payment of compensation. The Tribunal also seriously erred in holding that the deceased would have contributed about Rs. 80.00 per month to the family, that means he would have spent Rs. 65.00 for his own expenses. There was no basis for such an assumption. Where the income is so meagre as less than Rs. 150.00, no reasonable person can spend about half of the income on himself. Where the income is so low it must be presumed, unless there is a positive evidence to the contrary, that the deceased was sharing the entire income with the family members. It can be safely held that the deceased was under the poverty line at the time of his death and the appropriate compensation should be decided on that basis. After deducting a sum of Rs. 60.00 per month the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs. 14,400.00. The Tribunal further deducted a sum of Rs. 4,620.00 towards the lump sum payment and uncertainties of life, and finally held that sum of Rs. 9,780.00 was the proper compensation. It was quite erroneous to reduce about one-third of the amount, which was itself a very meagre amount, as a benefit of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. This part of the order and particularly the approach cannot be sustained. The award was made in 1977. It is much after the amendment in regard to the payment of interest was introduced in the Act. In spite of that no interest was awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) At the time of the hearing the counsel for Respondent 3, the Insurance Company, could not seriously try to show that the bus in question was not responsible for the accident. No worthwhile evidence was produced by the respondents to disbelieve the version of the accident of the claimant. In this court the claimants moved an application under 0. 41, R. 27 for taking on record the evidence regarding the normal increases in teh salary of the Central Government employees as recommended by the Third Pay Commission and because of the normal increments which the Government servants in the category of Class IV employees would earn. A table showing the increases from time to time has been filed as an annexure to the said application. The table shows that the deceased would have earned the salary and allowances of Rs. 1,51,144.46 according to the normal increase in the pay scale and increments. I have allowed that application. The counsel for the claimants had claimed that the normal expectancy of life cannot be assumed to be less than sixty years but even assuming the normal expectancy of life to be only up to 58 years, that is, up to (he age of retirement the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,51,144.00. The counsel for the respondents was unable to contest this claim of the increased compensation because the increased compensation was demanded on the basis of Third Pay Commission's Report and the normal increments.