URMILA SHARMA Vs. SUBEG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three cases relate to a case of death and injuries. FAO No. 599 of 1993 is a claim for compensation for death of a minor, aged 3 1/2 years where the claimants are the parents. The claim in both the FAO Nos. 595 and 702 of 1993 are for injuries. FAO No. 595 of 1993 is at the instance of the mother and FAO No. 702 of 1993 is at the instance of her minor son. There were two injuries relating to swelling of her leg and shoulder. The evidence was that she was used to be engaged in stitching work and on account of injuries, she could not do work and earn her living. She claimed that she was under treatment for nearly 8 months and that she had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-. As regards the claim for the minor for the injury in the tongue that was said to have caused impairment in speech, the Tribunal determined an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to be payable. However, all the three petitions were dismissed on a finding that the claim petitions had been filed beyond the period of limitation and consequently, the petitioners' claim could not be sustained. The issue of limitation does not obtain any relevance now particularly in view of the change in law removing the bar of limitation for prosecution of claims for accidents, whether occurred before or after the amendment brought in the Motor Vehicles Act. I, therefore, proceed to examine the case on merits with reference to the evidence and the claim for compensation.

(2.) In FAO No. 599 of 1993, the claimants were the parents for the deceased, who was 3 1/2 years of age. The counsel for the respondents points out that the judgment copy refers to only one petitioner. I reckon that it must be a mistake for the grounds of appeal referred to Davinder Kumar and another and the counsel for the petitioner also gives to me a copy of the application filed before the Tribunal by one Urmila describing herself as the wife of the petitioner Davinder Kumar. The mother of the child had also given evidence in Court and I would, therefore, take both the parents to be the claimants and the absence of reference to the mother in the judgment must be an accidental omission.

(3.) I will not go into an elaborate determination of the various heads of claims, since the deceased was 3 1/2 years of age and the assessment could only be a manner of approximation of what the child could have contributed if he had grown. Having regard to the fact that the accident was of the year 1989 and with no specific evidence of the status of findings, I would think that it would be just and equitable that Rs. 1 lakh is determined as payable to the parents under all the relevant heads with interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment.