SUKHDARSHAN SINGH Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the truck owner against whom, a claim petition was filed by the respondents-claimants, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed on award of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, with 12% interest per annum, on account of death of Ram Singh due to injuries sustained by him in the accident.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Ram Singh and his wife, Ranjit Kaur, while going from their house, met with an accident as a result of which, Ram Singh died after 51 days of hospitalisation. As per the claimants (respondents herein), the truck being driven by Kuldip Kumar came at. a rash speed and without blowing horn, negligently struck against the motor cycle causing multiple injuries to Ram Singh and his wife. Ram Singh who was removed to CM C. Hospital, Ludhiana, after the accident, succumbed to his injuries after 51 days' admission in the said hospital. A claim petition was filed by his widow, Ranjit Kaur, son Harpreet Singh, father-Teja Singh and mother Mahinder Kaur. The deceased at the time of accident was 29 years of age and earning Rs. 1519/- per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced before it by the parties to the claim petition, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver. Ram Singh, deceased, was employed as a Cashier-cum Clerk, and at the relevant time, was drawing Rs. 1430/- per month, and after taking into consideration that he must be spending l/3rd on himself, the dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs. 1000/- per month The Tribunal after applying a multiplier of 20, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the claimants, and fixed the liability of the Insurance Company at Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The truck owner being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal has challenged the same in the present, appeal.

(3.) MR. J. S. Randhawa, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not justified in finding that the deceased must have been spending l/3rd on himself, rather he stated that he must have been spending much more than that; therefore, the dependency of the claimants cannot be determined at Rs. 1,000/- per month. He also contended that liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited and not to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/. In support of this, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Smt. Kako Devi and Ors. v. Gian Parkash Gupta, (1990-1)97 P. L R. 483.