THOK UPBHOKTA SAHKARI BHANDAR Vs. SAHDAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no dispute between the parties about the following facts at the bearing of the present appeals: One Chandrabhan sustained serious injuries in a motor accident that took place on 19-6-1972. He died as a result of the said injuries on 20-6-1972. Appellant no. 1, Wholesale Consumers Co-operative Societies Rewa, was the owner of the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident. Appellant No. 3, Gullu, was driving the said vehicle and on behalf of the appellant no. 1 at the relevant time. The accident took place due to negligent driving of the appellant No. 2.

(2.) THERE is also no dispute between the parties about the following further facts at the hearing of the present appeal: Deceased Chandrabhan was an agriculturist and maintained himself and his family by cultivating about sixty acres of land that stood in bis name and that of his brother. He was aged about 55 years on the date of his death. Claimant No. 1, Sahdiya, was the widow of the deceased. Claimants nos. 2 and 3, Kum. Jamuni (15 years) and Bhuvneshwar (13 years) were minor children of the deceased. For their livelihood the three claimants depended on the deceased.

(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, in view of the evidence produced in the case, the Tribunal committed no error in finding that the deceased was earning an income of about Rs. 3,000/- per year from personal cultivation of his lands. Again, the Tribunal committed no error in finding that out of the said income the deceased would have spent about one half i.e. Rs. 1,500/- per annum on the three claimants. It is only while choosing the appropriate multiplier that a slight error was committed by the Tribunal. It was in the evidence that though Chandrabhan was aged about 55 years on the date of his death he was maintaining good health. As he had to bring up his minor child, and marry his daughter, there was no reason to think that he would not have continued to work at least for another seven years. In the circumstances, instead of 'five' the Tribunal should have chosen the multiplier of seven.'