RESHAM SINGH Vs. CHANNO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are connected arising out of the same accident. The appeal in FAO No.712 of 1994 is at the instance of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident for the liability cast on him and FAO No.959 of 1994 is for enhancement of the compensation awarded against the owner-cum-driver only and exonerating the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that on the date of accident, namely, 09.01.1991, the licence of the driver had expired and the renewal had been made subsequently on 09.02.1991, that is, beyond a period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the licence. The licence, as a matter of fact, was shown to have expired on 09.12.1990.

(2.) The appeals by the claimants are only on the issue of quantum since the Tribunal itself found the owner-cum-driver to be negligent. I have not been shown through any argument by the counsel appearing for the owner as to how the finding regarding negligence is wrong. Consequently, I confirm the finding and would address the case for consideration only as regards the quantum.

(3.) The deceased was said to be aged 32 years, although postmortem showed aged to be 35 and was said to be an agriculturist having 5 acres of land and also working as a mechanic. The evidence of the widow was that her husband used to earn '3,500/- per month through his cultivation and as a mechanic of diesel engine. The Tribunal provided for a 1/3 rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 16 to determine the loss of dependency and after including the medical expenses provided for '1,36,244.90 as compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would point out that although there was no proof relating to the fact that he was working as a motor mechanic, the Tribunal was in error in taking the income to be only '1,000/- per month. He was supporting a family of the widow and three minor children and when there was evidence with reference to his ownership of land about 5 acres, it ought to have provided for the income as claimed by the petitioner. A villager working as motor mechanic cannot be expected to have any documentary proof and I see no reason to discard such an evidence. I will take the income to be '2,000/- per month at the relevant time and provided for a 1/4 th deduction for personal consumption and take the contribution to the family at '1,500/- per month. I will adopt the same multiplier as taken by the Tribunal and find total loss of dependency at '2,88,000/- and make provision for '5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and '2,500/- for love and affection to each of the minor children. I will make further addition of '5,000/- towards loss to estate and '2,500/- towards funeral expenses and find the total compensation at '3,08,000/-. The amount in excess of what has been determined by the Tribunal already, shall attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.