KAMLA DEVI Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of three appeals bearing FAO Nos. 608,697 and 726 of 1987. Facts are being mentioned from FAO No. 608 of 1987 filed by the claimants.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that Ram Chander, the only bread earner of the family of the claimants, had died on 31.1.1986 in a motor accident. He was sitting on a tractor. It has been stated that on the fateful day, tractor along with trolley was going to Kurukshetra at about 3.30 p.m. when it reached near village Kamoda, a truck bearing No. HRF 4337 came from the rear side. The said vehicle was driven in a very rash and negligent manner. It hit the trolley from behind, pushed both tractor and the trolley towards one side. Due to that tractor hit against the tree and came to a halt. In that accident Ram Chander died at the spot. Appellants/claimants are his widow, two minor children and a minor sister. Factum of accident and death of Ram Chander in that accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,15,200 along with interest @ 12% p.a.

(3.) AFTER hearing Counsel for the appellants, this Court feels that prayer made is justified. It is apparent from the records that the deceased was a farmer. Apart from his own land, he was getting land for cultivation on lease, from the Gram Panchayat. It has also come on record that he was maintaining a dairy and was selling the milk. PW1, her widow had categorically stated that he was earning an amount of Rs. 20000 to Rs. 25,000 per year. It has come in evidence of Hari Singh (P.W. 5), Secretary of the Cooperative Society of the milk producers that the deceased was selling milk worth Rs. 800-850 per month and after his death, supply of milk had stopped. PW6, who is a commission agent, had stated that the deceased used to sell his crop to him and to prove the said fact, he had brought on record a copies of Form-J, issued at the time of selling of the crop. P.W. 7, who was Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, had stated that the deceased had taken 6 acres 6 kanals of land of the Gram Panchayat on lease. All these facts clearly demonstrate that after death of Ram Chander, the family had suffered heavily. The Tribunal has gone wrong to say that there is no evidence to prove financial loss caused to the family. To award compensation, reliance has been placed only upon a fact that after death of Ram Chander, one servant was employed and income of that servant had been assessed at Rs. 900 per month and by applying cut of 3rd dependency of the family has been assessed at Rs. 600 per month. This Court feels that the finding given is not justified. It is true, that when compensation is claimed in motor accident cases, there is always an attempt to exaggerate income of the deceased, in this case, his widow has said that he was earning around Rs. 2,000 per month. Be that as it may, there exists sufficient evidence on record, on the basis of which, it can safely be said that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 1,000 per month. He was maintaining large family. Under these circumstances, it is not expected that he was spending 1/3rd amount of his income, upon himself. In view of formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), to calculate compensation, unit system can be applied. In view of ratio of above said judgment, total number of units comes to 7 i.e. (2 major, including the deceased and three minors in the family), 2 units can be earmarked for self-expenditure of the deceased, by deducting the same from his income, amount of dependency of family would come to Rs. 715 (1000-285) per month. Admittedly, age of the deceased was about 25 years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16, which is on the lower side. Multiplier of 18 would serve the ends of justice. On the basis of above said calculation, the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs. 154,440 say Rs. 1, 55,000. Interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. It is ordered that the claimants shall be entitled to claim interest from the date of moving application, for grant of compensation, till realisation of amount @ 10% p.a. Liability of the Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 is only up to Rs. 1, 50,000. FAO No. 608 of 1987, filed by the claimants stands allowed, in the terms mentioned above.