RAM PIAREY LAL Vs. RADHEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the judgment under appeal. This appeal arises out of an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in the ease of death of a young boy which has been allowed by the Tribunal awarding Rs. 12, 600/- by way of compensation. Being dis satisfied with the quantum of the award the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) IN brief, the relevant facts are that on 17-11-1978 at about 4.45 P.M. the deceased Girish Chand was hit by truck No. U.P.Z. 8509 from behind when he was going on a cycle on the left side of the road. He was seriously injured and was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries at about 8.15 the same evening. The deceased was aged about 16-1/2 years and was a student of Class IX having a brilliant academic career till then.

(3.) IN the claim petition Rs. 18, 000/- was claimed by way of general damages and further Rs. 52, 000/- was claimed by way of special damages. Thus in all Rs. 70, 000/- was claimed as compensation. The tribunal recorded a finding that the driver was negligent and the owner of the vehicle was, therefore, liable for payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. The tribunal accordingly considered the evidence of the claimants and came to the conclusion that the deceased would have been in a position to complete his studies upto graduation by the age of 24 or 25 years. Naturally, it could have taken a few more years to secure a job. By that time the parents would have already attained the ages of 55 years or more. The tribunal has taken the average span of life in the family as 70 years and on that basis it came to the conclusion that the appellants would have been supported by the deceased for about 15 years. Taking the likely dependency of the appellants at Rs. 100/- per month it determined Rs. 18, 000/- as amount which the deceased would have contributed to his parents. However, this amount would have been made available to the parents in trickles every month and not in a lump sum. Taking all these factors into account the tribunal was of the opinion that in such cases a multipliear of 8 should be applied because the deceased was a young boy and therefore subject to much more uncertainties. In these circumstances, it awarded Rs. 8, 600/- by way of compensation on this amount. In addition the tribunal has also awarded Rs. 3, 000/- for pain and suffering for the period during which the deceased remained alive after the accident.