UTTAM KAUR Vs. GOPI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants (claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (in short Tribunal) have assailed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 3rd January, 1974 thereby awarding them a sum of Rs. 10,800.00 . The short point involved in this appeal is, could the Tribunal ignore the evidence while fixing the quantum or the dependency income of the deceased. What multiplier the Tribunal should have applied. Lump sum deductions at the rate of 50% from the dependency income of the deceased is against law. That the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while awarding the compensation. Deceased was 42 to 43 years at the time of his death.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised at the bar, we may have quick glance to the facts of the facts of this case. The deceased Sumer Singh was going on his motor cycle when suddenly truck bearing No. DLG-88 driven by respondent No. 1 Gopi Ram struck against the motor vycle driven by the deceased. This happened on 1st July, 1968 at about 6.40 p.m. at New Patel Nagar Market Road. The deceased, Sumer Singh I eft behind his widow, three daughters and two sons besides his aged parents. His legal heirs preferred claim for compensation. They examined two witnesses on the question of quantum i.e. Dilip Singh (Public Witness 5) and Mehar Chand, (PW 6) (besides the widow stepping into the witness box herself) who categorically stated that the deceased was running a Kabaria, shop in Karol Bagh and was earning between Rs. 450.00 to Rs. 500.00 per month. They also testified that the age of the deceased was between 42 to 43 years at the time of his death. That deceased's parents at the time of his death were in the age group of 75 to 74 years respectively. In view of the unrebutted testimony of Public Witness Public Witness 5 and Public Witness Public Witness 6 that the income of the deceased was between Rs. 450.00 to Rs. 500.00 permonths, I have failed to understand as to how the Tribunal could conclude that the income of the deceased had not been proved on record. Applying the concept of daily wager's income to deceased, to my mind, shows non-application of mind on the part of the Tribunal. It is an admitted fact on record that deceased owned motor vycle which he was driving at the time of his accident. He was running a Kabaria shop in a highly commercial area namely Karol Bagh, therefore it is difficult to believe that a person who was running a shop in Karol Bagh, having a motor cycle was back in 1968 would be earning only Rs. 5 per day. No reason has been assigned for such a finding by the Tribunal, nor any reason has been assigned for discarding the testimonies of Dilip Singh (Public Witness 5) and Mehar Chand (Public Witness 6). Mehar Chand (Public Witness 6) was the neighbour of the deceased. He being a neighbour way on good terms with the deceased and his family. According to him the deceased was earning between Rs. 450.00 to Rs. 475.00 per month. He further stated that the deceased had been discussing his business with him and had told him about his earning. Dilip Singh (Public Witness 5) the father of the deceased had been going to the shop, therefore, was the best person to know about the earnings of the deceased. According to him, the deceased used to hand over his complete earning to his family and that his monthly income was about Rs. 500.00 . Deceased was living in the house of his father. He had not to incur any expenses on rent. Deceased had not been keeping any incoma for himself. He used to spend all his amount on his family. Dilip Singh and his wife were also dependent on his sons i.e. the deceased and two other sons. This part of Dilip Singh's testimony remained unrebutted. His statement that deceased was earning Rs. 500.00 per month from the shop was not subjected to cross examination. Similarly, the testimony of Mehar Chand (Public Witness 6) that the deceased was riming a shop at Karol Bagh as Kabaria and was earning Rs. 450.00 to Rs. 500 per month remained unassailed and unrebutted on record. No evidence was lead by the respondent to rebuut the testimonies of Public Witness Public Witness 5 and Public Witness Public Witness 6, therefore, in view of the unrebutted testimonies of these two witnesses, there was no justification or reason for the Tribunal to conclude that the income of the deceased could only by assessed at Rs. 150.00 per month. How the Tribunal arrived at this conclusion appears to be his own imagination, surmises and conjectures but definitely not supported by any evidence. Hence this conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

(3.) On the basis of evidence which has come on record, I hold that the income of the deceased was Rs. 450.00 per month. The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration that the deceased was in the age group of 42 to '43 years when he died. The life expectency taking into consideration the age of his parents who at that time were between 74 to 75 years old one can say that the deceased would have lived upto 75 years had he not been killed. Had he lived till 75 years he would have made better earning from this Kabaria business. The Tribunal ignored the future prospects of the deceased. The future prospects of the deceased and his bringing up five children plus contributing expenses to the parents would show that he could have earned more money in due course of time. His income could have gone beyond Rs. 500.00 per month. Mr. Goyal's contention that deceased income would have doubled up cannot be lightly brused aside. According to Counsel for appellant the dependency income should be fixed at Rs. 900.00 per month plus what he would have earned, had he been alive. It is difficult to say whether income of the deceased had gone to Rs. 900.00 or not, but fact remains that had the deceased been alive his income could not have remained at Rs. 450.00 per month. Taking into consideration future prospects in Kabaria business, I think in the due course of time, the deceased would have earned more than Rs. 450.00 per month. On an average the dependency income would have gone up to Rs. 600.00 per month. Taking this amount into consideration annual income of the deceased works out to Rs. 7,200.00 per annum. By applying multiplier of 18 years the dependency income would come to Rs. l,29,600.00 . No duduction can be allowed from this amount either on account of the goods which he left worth Rs. 2000.00 to Rs. 2,500.00 or on account of his personal expenses. Accordingly, I modify the impugned award to the extent that the appellants will be entitled to Rs. l,29,600.00 plus interest at the rate of 15% from the date of application till payment. The amount, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted and interest will be paid on diminishing basis.