ZILE SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 615 and 657 of 1987 as both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, which had taken place on 16.11.1985. The claimant-appellants in both the cases are two fathers of their deceased sons. They have invoked Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging award dated 2.5.1987, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal in its award has awarded Rs. 21,600/- each in lieu of death of their two sons who were working as manual labourers/Palledars. In both the cases the net annual loss of dependency has been worked out to be Rs. 3,120/- and curiously the amount awarded is Rs. 21,600/-. With regard to the accident it has been categorically found that the military truck bearing No. ARK-8 IR-1997 had rammed into the civilian truck bearing No. HYC-6235 by taking a wrong side. The deceased Raju son of Phool Singh and the other Raju son of Zile Singh along with others were travelling in the civilian truck along with bags of cement. The military truck was found to be left hand driven instead of the steering being on the right hand. The Tribunal also found patent violation of Section 80 of the Act. The findings of the Tribunal are explicit from the reading of paras 11 and 12, which are as under:

(2.) The income of the deceased in both the cases has been held to be Rs. 390/ per month, which is equivalent to Rs. 4,680/- per annum. The net loss of annual dependency after deducting 1/3rd has been worked out to be Rs. 3,120/- and the award made is for Rs. 21,600/-. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased were 19/20 years old and even if the loss of dependency is kept at Rs. 3,120/- per annum, a suitable multiplier of 16 should have been applied. According to the learned Counsel, the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can be relied upon as a safe guard even for calculating the amount of compensation where the 1939 Act is applicable. With regard to the assessment of income at Rs. 390/- per month by taking the Schedule of Labour Rates of Karnal District for the year 1985-86, the learned Counsel has argued that imposition of maximum amount of Rs. 390/ would be unreasonable and @ Rs. 15/- per day the amount cannot be assessed at less than Rs. 450/- per month. He has also highlighted that no amount has been awarded for the loss of future prospects wherein the income of the deceased was bound to go up.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel at a considerable length, I am of the opinion that the accident has not been disputed and there is categorical finding that Section 80 of the Act has been violated which prohibits driving of any vehicle with left hand steering control without mechanical or electrical signalling device of a prescribed nature and in working order. The respondents have not challenged this finding in any appeal, therefore, this finding is liable to be upheld. I am further of the opinion that there is substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the claimant-appellants. The income of both the deceased has been assessed at a lower rate of Rs. 390/- per month, which deserves to be assessed at Rs. 450/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 300/- per month. However, on the basis of future prospects enhancement of Rs. 150/- per month deserve to be added which brings the same to Rs. 450/-, as per the principle laid down in the cases of General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas and Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav. According to the 2nd Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier of 16 deserves to be applied. This multiplier although has been formulated for the purposes of Section 163-A of the 1988 Act, but it has been found to be a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation than by any other method. The aforementioned proposition has been accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. . Therefore, the total award would be worked out to be Rs. 86,400/-. The Tribunal has also failed to award any amount in lieu of funeral expenses. Accordingly, Rs. 3,000/- is awarded as funeral expenses and the total amount is rounded off to Rs. 90,000/- in each of the cases.