SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only relief claimed in this Letters Patent Appeal, directed against the order dated August 17, 1982 of the learned Single Judge, is to the grant of higher compensation. The claimant-appellants were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,400/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It was reduced to Rs. 1,08,000/- by the order under appeal.

(2.) DR . Brijendra Singh was aged about 29 years and three months at the lime of his death. He was travelling in Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HRA-1267 on June, 1971. The said bus hit the side on the bridge of the Mohri Nullah near Ambala and then fell into the river bed, thereby injuring several passengers. Dr. Brijendra Singh died at the spot. Appellants and two others filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, being the dependents of said Brijendra Singh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the deceased was drawing Rs. 536/- per month as his emoluments, he having been employed in the Department of Animal Husbandary, Rajasthan. The Tribunal determined the longevity of life at 70 years and assessed his average emoluments at Rs. 600/- per month. After taking that the deceased must be spending l/4th of his earnings i. e. 150/- on behalf, the dependency of the claimants was taken at Rs. 450/- per month. The Tribunal seems to have applied a multiplier of 26 and ultimately awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,63,400/-as compensation including Rs. 5,000/under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge after observing "there was thus reasonable prospect of the deceased improving his financial position by getting higher salary. It is also noteworthy that in view of his qualifications, he was expected to earn some amount after his retirement. ", has erred in assessing the loss to the appellants at Rs. 450/per month. On these premises, it was argued by the learned counsel that reduction, in the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was not called for and the appellants were entitled, if not more, to that amount of compensation.