INDERJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above titled appeals as the same arise out the same accident.

(2.) IN a collision between Jeep and truck two persons travelling in the jeep died; two persons were injured. The Tribunal found the involvement of the truck as established but assessed the compensation only on no fault basis because the driver had not been challaned for rash and negligent driving but proceeded with only for non -possession driving licence. I find the approach of the Tribunal to be perverse. The decision of the Tribunal need not tow the police perspective of the accident. The Tribunal was bound to examine the issue of negligence on the basis of evidence. Here two persons who were injured had given cogent evidence about the rash driving of the 2nd respondent driver. The Tribunal expressed a doubt about the identity of 1st respondent as the driver of the truck but, in my view, it ought not to matter at all, for, whoever the driver he was, dashed against the jeep and let the latter capsize, it was enough for the claimant to succeed.

(3.) FAO No. 657 of 1996 is the claim for death of a woman. Her age is not known. The claimants are husband and two minor children. Considering that the children are still minors, I venture a guess that the deceased is about 40 years. I take the value of service contributed to the family at Rs. 2500/ - and determine the compensation by applying a multiplier of 14 and take the loss of dependence at Rs. 4,20,000/ -. I add Rs. 1 lac for loss of consortium to the husband and Rs. 1 lac for loss of love and affection to the children and add another Rs. 10,000/ - for loss to estate and funeral expenses. Various heads of claim are tabulated as under: -