BAL KRISHAN MALHOTRA Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the claimants filed against order dated January 28, 1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereby a sum of Rs. 58,800/- was awarded to claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per-cent per annum amounting to Rs. 17,052/- from the date of the petition till the date of the order, the total amount being Rs. 75,852/- and further interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal amount was awarded till realistion.

(2.) SINCE only the question of quantum of compensation is argued in the appeal, it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the accident took place on September 2, 1984. " Deepak Malhotra was riding Scooter No. DHW-2438 and Ashwini Kumar was sitting on the pillion seat. One Matador Vehicle No. P. I.-5036 came from the opposite direction and while overtaking another car came to the wrong side and struck against the scooter which was dragged. Ultimately Deepak Malhotra died Several issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Matador aforesaid whose driver was Tejinder Singh respondent. While awarding compensation, the earning capacity of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 800/- and dependency of the claimants (parents) was fixed at Rs. 350/ -. In this manner, a figure of Rs. 58,800/- was arrived at by applying multiplier of 14 (Rs. 350 x 12x14 ).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, multiplier should have been 16. According to him, the deceased Deepak Mallhotra was aged about 25 years. Bal Krishan claimant is aged abort 61 years and the other claimant Smt. Sushila Devi (mother) is aged about 55 years. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of D. V. Sehgal J. in Bimla Devi Aggarwal v. Ganda Singh, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 104. In that case, the deceased was aged about 27 years and she mother-claimant was aged about 55 years and 16 was applied as multiplier. The question of fixing suitable multiplier has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case and no decision can be followed as a precedent. No doubt, in the case of Bimla Devi Aggarwal, 16 was applied as the multiplier, In Colonel K. S. Dhaliwal and Anr. v. Jagdeep Riar, (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 121, S. S. Sodhi, J. applied a multplier of 14 in the case of father who was 60 years old and mother 52 years. The basic principles which are to be taken into consideration have already been laid down by a Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979) 81 P. L. R. 1. . In the present case, it cannot be said that by fixing multiplier of 14, the judgment, is erroneous to call for any interference in appeal.