HARBHAJAN SINGH BHALLA Vs. DHARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accident took place on 21st July, 1965 near the round about of the Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, in which Jagdish Singh Bhalla was run over by the bus No. USL 3972 belonging to U.P. Roadways. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The contention of the respondents was that the deceased was struck by another vehicle and that the bus in question was not involved in the accident at all. The respondents' version that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident was disproved by the fact that the blood was noticed on the front left wheel of the bus. The Driver of the vehicle was also arrested almost immediately after the accident. After causing the accident the bus had gone about 40 to 45 feet ahead. Four eye witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. Shri Thakur Singh Bhalla (P.W. 10) is the brother of the deceased. He had stated that they were coming on foot from Ajmeri Gate to Kamla Market and that the bus came from behind and ran over the deceased. This story is supported by the other witnesses, namely, by Shri Rajinder Kumar (PW 5), Shri Harmohinder Singh (PW 7) and Shri Shekhar Chand. These witnesses were named in the F.I.R. also. On going through the evidence produced on behalf of the respondents the Tribunal has found that the evidence is not reliable, as no witness had stated as to how the accident had taken place. I am taken through the evidence of all the witnesses and I find that the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the liability of the bus in question is fully supported by the evidence. The bus in question was guilty and negligently driven and was responsible for the death. The F.A.O. No. 56 of 1974 is, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) THE next question is regarding the suitable compensation in this . The deceased was only 25 years old. The Tribunal has found that he was earning Rs. 375/- per month. On the basis of the evidence of his brother, Shri Thakur Singh Bhalla, (PW 10), who had stated that the deceased was spending Rs. 6/- to Rs. 7/- per day on himself, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs. 160/- towards the contribution to his family. The Tribunal has then arrived at the multiplier of 15 so far as the father of the deceased is concerned and 20 for the mother of the deceased. This is obviously done taking into account their respective ages. On this conclusion the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the family had lost the benefit of Rs. 33,600/-. I do not find any error in this working out the compensation by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has gone wrong in deducting a sum of Rs. 7500/- which was the capital investment of the deceased in Harnam Motors. The compensation is paid for the damages for the loss that is suffered by the premature death. The capital investment which the deceased was having in a motor company had nothing to do with the damages in question. I, therefore, disallow the said deduction. The Tribunal has also erred in deducting a sum of Rs. 2610/- for lumpsum payments and uncertainties of life. No such deduction is now permissible in view of the rising costs. The accident had taken place in 1965. The counsel for the U.P. Roadways has submitted that the deceased in course of time would have married and his contribution to his parents would have been less and less as his own family would have been increased. I am not inclined to take this submission into consideration while calculating the amount of compensation. This is because of the fact that I have not considered the future rise of the salary or in the income of the deceased, who was only 25 years at the time of his death. I, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 33,600/-as compensation. The counsel for the U.P. Roadways informs that the amount of Rs. 23,490/- was paid to the claimants immediately after the award was pronounced on 12-11-1973. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent on Rs. 33,600/- from the date of the application to 12-11-1973 and on the additional amount of compensation now awarded from 12-11-1973 till the actual payment at the same rate of interest. The F.A.O. 47 of 1974 is allowed with costs. A cheque for the amount in question will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court within two months from today and the Registrar will disburse the amount to the claimants after proper notice to them.