MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant-appellants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging award dated 7.2.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), awarding an amount of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation. The claimantappellants are the parents of the deceased Paramjit Singh, who had died in accident. There are categorical findings that the accident in question took place on account of negligence of the driver of the offending truck, which resulted into the death of Paramjit Singh, the son of the claimant-appellants. It has further been found that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 750/- per month and by applying the principle of 1/3rd deduction as well as his marriage FAO No. 642 of 1987 prospects, the annual dependency has been assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. The age of the deceased has been found to be 27 years and that of his father and mother as 55 and 50 years respectively. It has further been held that he was expected to maintain his parents for at least 15 years from his income and accordingly a multiplier of 15 has been applied.

(2.) MR . Munishwar Puri, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has made two submissions before me. Firstly he has argued that the age of the claimant-appellants was required to be kept in view by the Tribunal along with the age of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, Schedule II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be applied by taking the age of the parents as the base. In other words, the argument is that the age of the parents would seek the guidance for deciding the multiplier to be applied in the present case. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on para 18 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996(2) RRR 718 (SC) : 1996(2) PLR 537. He has also relied upon para 13 of another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 550 (SC) : 2005(2) PLR 661. Learned counsel has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Murti and others v. Tarlochan Singh and others, 1992 ACJ 341, where the award of Rs. 25,000/- was upheld and the claimant were parents, brother and sister. According to the learned counsel the deceased in the aforementioned case was 25 years of age and was found to be earning Rs. 800 per month. His second submission is that the liability of respondent No. 2 FAO No. 642 of 1987 3 Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 50,000/- and in that regard he has drawn my attention to the policy Ex. R-1.

(3.) THE arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company that the age of the claimant-appellants must be kept in view, has no leg to stand because the Tribunal in para 12 of the award has specifically observed that the age of Mukhtiar Singh was 55 years and that of his wife was 50 years. By keeping in view the average span of age in this part of the country, the Tribunal found that the deceased was expected to maintain his parents for at least 15 years. Therefore, it cannot be said on facts that the age of the appellants has not been kept in view.