PADMA JINDAL Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of FAO No. 672 of 1989 (Smt. Padma Jindal and Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.) and FAO No. 686 of 1989 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Padma Jindal and Ors.) which have arisen out of the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra dated 12. 1. 1989, which on a claim petition filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,61,920/- with 12% PA interest as compensation on account of the death of Ram Dayal Jindal who died in a road accident on 9. 8. 1987. For the purpose of judgment, the facts have been taken from FAO No. 672 of 1987. 2. The brief facts which led to the filing of these two appeals are that on 9. 8. 1987 Ram Bhagat Singh, Ram Dayala Jindal and Dr. A. R. Rao, were travelling in Maruti Van No. DBY-707 from Hissar to Chandigarh. The Van was driven by Umed Singh, respondent No. 2 which was owned by Rajinder Kumar, respondent No. 1. The driver was playing the van at a very fast speed. At a little distance from Kaithal on Pehowa-Kaithal road, the driver of the van lost its control. As a result thereof, the van swerved from the road and hit against a kikar tree, Ram Bhagat Singh and Ram Dayal Jindal died at the spot whereas Dr. A. R. Rao sustained serious injuries. 3. The claimants had claimed Rs. 5 lacs as compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') while disposing of the claim petition, vide its award dated 12. 1. 1989 held that the death of Ram Dayal Jindal was caused in the accident which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of van No. DBY-707 by its driver Umed Singh, respondent No. 2 for calculating the dependency of the claimants on the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 2262/- After deducting 1/3rd out of this income as personal expenditure, the monthly dependency on the deceased was determined at Rs. 1508/- and by adopting a multiplier of 20, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,61,920/- with 12% PA interest as compensation as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. 4. Against the said award, two appeal have been preferred, one by the claimants i. e. Padma Jindal and Ors. for enhancement of the compensation and another by the New India Assurance Company for setting aside the impugned award. 5. The Counsel for the claimants contended that there were five dependents on the deceased. The Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3rd as personal expenditure from the monthly income of the deceased. 6. The Counsel for the Insurance Company had contended that the claimants have been awarded compensation more than their entitlement. Therefore, there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation. The total monthly income of the deceased as per certified copy, Ex. A-5, was Rs. 2262/- and the dependency of the claimants had rightly been assessed. The Counsel further contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side as the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiplier of 20 and, as such the compensation is liable to be reduced. 7. After having perused the paper-book and considering the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am convinced that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly assessed. It has been proved on record that as per Exhibit A-5, the deceased was drawing Rs. 2262/- as monthly salary while working as Junior Engineer, Electrical Section, PWD (B&r) and the number of family members dependent upon him was five. I am of the view that in large family, the bread earner of the family would keep his need to the minimum and contribute maximum for the upkeep of his family. In, this view of the matter, the deceased would be spending 1/4th on himself out of Rs. 2262/- and the remaining on his family. In this manner, after deducting 1/4th as personal expenditure of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 1697/- and on this basis the annual dependency would be Rs. 20,364/- (Rs. 1697 x 12 ). 8. The other aspect of the is that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal had adopted a higher multiplier of 20 which is contrary to the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. , (1979)81 PLR 1 in which it was held as under :xx xx xx "for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor. The basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier ;