DULARI Vs. SEWAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of a learned single Judge whereby he allowed F. A. O. 22 of 1979 and enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants from Rs. 12500/- to Rs. 25000/ -. The claim in the present appeal is for further enhancement.

(2.) WHILE going to Sangrur on a bicycle on May 24, 1976 Jagidh Chancier deceased was knocked down by a bus bearing registration No. PNT-9471 belonging to respondent No. 5. It was being driven by Sewak Singh respondent No. l. 'the deceased was a bachelor and was about 18 years of age at the time of his death. He was a matriculate and was running a shop at Sangrur under the name and style of M/s. Mahesh Kumar Jagdish Kumar for the sale of mobil oil and kerosene oil. The claimants who are the parents'of the deceased were dependent upon him. As per the grounds of appeal before the learned single Judge the income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 300/per month. After deducting the amount that he must be spending on himself, he was left with Rs. 200/- per month for the maintenance of his, parents. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased was a young boy who would have in the near future got married and would have had family to support. The parents would have continued to be his dependents but the amount for their maintenance would have reduced. This aspect of the matter will have to be kept in view while determining the loss suffered by the parents due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus in question. The Motor Accident claim Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 12500/- and in appeal filed by the parents the same was enhanced to Rs. 25000/ -.

(3.) THE only submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants is that the Claim Tribunal as also the learned single Judge erred in not determining a suitable multiplier and awarded a lump-sum compensation to the claimants which was contrary to the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979)81 P. L. R. 1. This may be so, but this may not entitle the claimants to any further enhancement in the compensation. In our opinion '12' would be the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case as the claimants were the parents and there is nothing on the record to show as to what their age was. If annual dependency of the parents is taken to be Rs. 2000/- the amount of compensation payable to them would come to around Rs. 24000/- which would almost be the same which the learned Judge has awarded in appeal. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Consequently there is no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.