NASIB KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claimants had claimed Rs. 1,15,000 but the Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 19,125.00 as compensation. The cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Driver, the owner and the Insurance Company. Sarwan Siagh, deceased, was crossing the road near Lajpat Nagar bus stand and when he had crossed about half of the other road an oil tanker HRH- 4108 driven by respondent No. 1 came with a high speed from Ashram side and knocked down Sarwan Singh. Sarwan Singh was run-over under the wheels of the tanker and he died on the spot. The respondents contended that when the tanker was passing the road the deceased suddenly came from the fight side of the road running for crossing the road. On seeing him the Driver swerved the vehicle but the deceased came and bit on the tanker himself.

(2.) Public Witness 4, Vinod Kumar, is an eye witness and he has supported the version of the claimants. Public Witness 9., Krishan Lal, is also an eye witness. He was present on the spot when the accident took place. He had stated that the oil tanker came with a high speed and the front bumper hit the deceased and he was run over under the wheels of the tanker. I have been taken through the evidence of the eye-witness and I am satisfied that they are natural witnesses. The respondents had produced the Driver of the vehicle being R.W. 1. The Tribunal found that his evidence was not reliable, considering the eye witnesses' evidence and the evidence of Public Witness 13,Dr.B.L. Aggarwal, who had conducted the postmortem examination. I entirely agree with the findings of the Tribunal. It is, therefore, held that Sarwan Singh died because of the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle number HRH-4108 and the owner and Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) The employer of the deceased (P.W. 14) has stated in the evidence that the deceased was being paid Rs. 400.00 per month as a consolidated salary. The Tribunal was wrong in holding that his salary was only Rs. 300.00 . On the face of the evidence of the employer it was not permissible for the Tribunal to enter info any conjecture with regard to the salary of the deceased. In the apportionment of Rs. 175.00 for personal expenses the Tribunal has further fallen in error. The deceased was supporting the family consisting of his wife and four children in addition to his old parents who were also living with him, although the father was also earning. Considering the liability to feed at least his own family it will be reasonable to deduct Rs. 100.00 per month for personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has calculated the dependency for a period of 15 years. No basis has been given for coming to the said conclusion. The deceased was only 35 years old and it is quite reasonable to presume that he would have contributed to the welfare of his family at least for another twenty years. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to compensation of Rs. 72,000.00 . I am not inclined to make any deduction on account of the lump sum payment because of the high inflation and considering the liabilities towards four childrens who were all minors at the time of the accident.