RAMESH Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals arise out of the common award dated 27th May, 2002 passed by Motor Accidents' Claim Tribunal deciding the claim petitions filed by the appellants. The appellants have claimed enhancement of compensation in the present appeals. The appellant no. 1, Smt. Ramesh, in all three appeals is mother of late Ms. Lalita, Ms. Munita and Mr. Dinesh. The second appellant in these appeals is Mr. Paramjeet, brother of the late Ms. Lalita, Ms. Munita and Mr. Dinesh.

(2.) The deceased were travelling in a car bearing registration No. DNC-3697, which met with an accident on the night intervening 18th and 19th June, 1997 with truck bearing registration No. HR-38-A-6990. As a result of the said accident, all three of them expired. The said truck was being driven by Mr. Nand Lal, the respondent No. 1 and owned by Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh, the respondent No. 2. The said truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident. Learned Motor Accidents' Claim Tribunal has given a finding that the deceased lost their lives due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. There is no challenge to the said finding. Therefore, I need not re-examine this aspect. The only question and issue raised in the present appeals is with regard to quantum of total compensation awarded to the appellants. In the case of Ms. Lalita and Ms. Munita, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded and in the case of Mr. Dinesh, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded.

(3.) In the case of Ms. Lalita and Ms. Munita, learned Tribunal noticed that both of them were studying but it was claimed that they were simultaneously stitching clothes and earning income. Neither of them had obtained any diploma or special training for stitching clothes. Learned Tribunal however believed that the two daughters must be stitching clothes, but noticed that no evidence was produced to show any income being earned by them. It was also noticed that in normal course the two daughters would have got married and this was a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while calculating loss of dependency. In the case of Mr. Dinesh, the allegation made was that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by driving tractor and ploughing fields. He was educated upto class-XII. However, in his case also the learned Tribunal held that no conclusive and relevant evidence was led to show that Mr. Dinesh was earning and, therefore, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded.