AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BALWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Challenge in appeal here is to the decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to the plaintiff Balwant Kaur as compensation for the death of her only son Chartha Singh, who was murdered by the defendants on September 12, 1974. The sole contention raised being that the compensation assessed by the trial Court was excessive and unreasonable.

(2.) According to the evidence on record, Chartha Singh deceased was under 18 years of age at the time of his death, his date of birth being March 3, 1957. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to the testimony of his father P.W.2 Gopal Singh and P.W.6. Balwant Kaur, the plaintiff and mother of the deceased to the effect that there was a history of longevity in their family. Both the parents further testified to the fact that the deceased was a student of tenth class and was also gainfully employed, in that, he used to work as a labourer in his spare time and earned Rs. 5 to Rs.6/- per day which he gave to them. PW. 1 Harbhajan Singh, the Clerk of the Government Higher Secondary School Tarn Taran, deposed to the deceased being a student in the tenth class in this school.

(3.) The principle governing the computation of compensation payable in such cases were spelt out by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 81 PunLR 1, where it was held that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the deceased and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose annual earnings 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 dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. It was further observed that the suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of the re-marriage of the widow, the coming up of the age of the dependants and their developing independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned. Later, in Asha Rani v. Union of India, 1983 ACJ 52 in considering Lachman Singh's case , it was held that the normal multiplier would be 16 which can rise to a maximum of twenty, virtually as the outer limit.