PRABHJIT KAUR Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, vide its award dated 3.2. 1987, had awarded Rs. 1,09,00/- by way of compensation to the claimants for the death of Satpal Singh. The Claimants were to get interest @ 12% per annum on the amount from the date of the petition Being not satisfied by the award, the claimants, who are heirs of deceased Satpal Singh, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The occurrence is not in dispute.

(2.) The only question which arises for consideration is the dependency of the claimants and according to the Counsel for the appellant claimants a multiplier of 20 which in the facts and circumstances was reasonable, should have been applied. The counsel for the appellants contends that sole bread earner of the family Satpal Singh had died in an accident, which took place on 21.5.1985, leaving behind his widow Smt. Prabhjit Kaur, three minor children and aged mother. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of his death. All the aforesaid persons were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. The claimants have placed on record an assessment order for year 1982-83, Ex P-4 showing that Satpal Singh deceased had income of Rs 14,960/- per annum as per his own return. Since the accident occurred on 21.5.1985. The Court had assumed that the income of the deceased might have increased and gone upto Rs. 18,000/- per annum. After considering the matter, the Court arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 1500/- per month and out of this amount he must be spending half of the amount on himself and rest on his family. Thus, the annual dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per annum. While granting compensation, the Court applied a multiplier of 12 only and as such awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- including Rs. 1000/- as expenses which were incurred on the transportation of the dead body and for performing funeral rites of the deceased.

(3.) After giving consideration to the entire matter. I am of the view that the deceased, besides himself, was maintaining five members also. It cannot be said that out of total earning of Rs. 1500/- per month, he was spending half of the amount on himself. Smt. Prabhjit Kaur, widow of the deceased, on a Court query, informed that the deceased used to cater all the requirements of the family and he, in any event, was not spending more than Rs. 300/- per month for his personnal needs. In my view, the deceased who had the liability of his school going children besides maintaining the family, would restrict expenditure for his personal needs and would not spend half of the amount of he income. As such I gave drawn a definite conclusion that the deceased must not be spending more than Rs. 300/- per month on himself. Consequently, I assess the dependency of the family at Rs. 14,000/- per annum.