TAJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine will dispose of FAO Nos. 997, 991 of 1984 and 35 of 1985 as they have arisen out of a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to "the Tribunal") Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimants as well as General Manager, C. T. U. , Chandigarh have filed these appeals. For the purpose of order, the facts have been taken from FAO No. 997 of 1984.

(2.) ONE Satwant Kaur wife of Baldev Singh died in accident on 12. 11. 1982. Satwant Kaur deceased was travelling in Bus No. PBQ-4301 from Chandigarh to Jalandhar. When the bus reached near Paniali Kalan on Ropar Balachaur Road, a cart was coming from the opposite direction which was over taken by Bus No. CTU-3588 coming from the Balachaur side. In the meantime, another Bus No. CHW-9057 came on the wrong side and in order to over take Bus No. CTU-3588 struck against Bus No. PBQ-4301 as a result of which the accident occurred. Satwant Kaur received injuries and subsequently she succumbrd to her injuries. One Tarlok Singh who was travelling in Bus No. CHW-9057 also sustained injuries. The legal heirs of Satwant Kaur, deceased filed the claim petition. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 24,000/- as compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the award, the claimants filed FAO No. 997 of 1984. Tarlok Singh had also filed the claim petition and was awarded Rs. 11,050/- as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him. He too has filed FAO No. 35 of 1985. The General Manager, C. T. U. Chandigarh has also filed F. A. O. No. 991 of 1984 challenging the award of Tribunal vide which a sum of Rs. 11,050/- was granted to Tarlok Singh.

(3.) IN F. A. O. No. 997 of 1984, the plea is that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- per month and after her death the claimants had to engage a servant for performing domestic work, therefore, the loss of Rs. 200/- per month calculated by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in comparing the services of mother with paid servant. It ignored the fact that besides the salary, the claimants had to spend on board and lodging of the servant and no benefit has been given on this account.