SARHO DEVI Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by appellants against the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, on June 6, 1988, vide which compensation amount of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants. No interest was granted by the Tribunal. The compensation was awarded, on account of death of Karan Singh, who was husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellants Nos. 2 to 4 and son of appellant No. 5. Accident had occurred on May 4, 1986. The factum of accident is not in dispute. The grievance of the appellants in this appeal is that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. By referring to evidence of PW2 and PW3, counsel contends that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month and he was giving Rs. 1000/- per month to the family members for their survival. He further states that the Tribunal has gone wrong by assessing dependency of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per annum. He prayed that the compensation amount be enhanced.

(2.) THIS Court feels that the arguments raised has substance and is liable to be accepted to some extent. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, this Court feels that the finding given by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. It is not in dispute that the deceased was running a shop and as per evidence on record, he was earning Rs. 40/- per day. The Tribunal is right in saying that he can be presumed to have worked for 20 days a month. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month, as assessed by the Tribunal, is correct. However, the Tribunal has committed an error while assessing dependency of the claimants. The deceased belongs to a poor family. He had large family to support. His family members include his wife, minor children and his mother. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he will spend huge amount upon himself and will spare only Rs. 4,000/- per annum for the family. Keeping in view number of the family members, it can reasonably be said that the deceased might be spending around Rs. 200/- per month on himself and rest of the amount he was handing over to the family member for their survival. In this manner, the dependency of the appellants- claimants comes to Rs. 7200/- per annum. Age of the deceased was between 40 to 45 years. The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier on 15, which needs no interference.

(3.) WITH above mentioned modification, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.