SATYA PAL GUPTA Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala dated 15/2/1990 passed in MACT case No. 20 of 30/7/1987, wherein the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,68,000.00 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the claim petition i.e. 29/7/1987 till recovery. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were held jointly and severely liable for the payment of awarded amount. However, insurance company was held liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000.00, in terms of the policy. Out of awarded amount, it was directed that the parents were to get 1/3rd, widow and two minor children were to get the remaining 2/3rd amount in equal shares.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 10/2/1987 at about 5.30 P.M., Upinder Kumar alongwith Mohinder Singh, both deceased, were coming from Chandigarh to Ambala in Maruti Van bearing registration No. HXY-7800. The said Van was being driven by deceased Upinder Kumar while deceased Mohinder Singh was sitting with him. When they reached near Khurana Foam Factory, near Dera Bassi, a truck bearing registration No. PNC-4867 came from opposite direction, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently. The truck hit the van when it took a sudden right turn, as a result of which both the deceased persons suffered critical injuries. While Upinder Kumar died on the way to PGI, Chandigarh whereas Mohinder Singh died in the hospital. It is claimed that Upinder Kumar was aged about 30 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 2100.00 per month, and the claimants being parents, widow and two minor sons. The allegations made in the claim petition were denied by the respondents while pleading that deceased Upinder Kumar appeared to be drunk because a bottle containing a small quantity of liquor was recovered from inside the Van after the accident and further that the accident took place because the driver of the Van, namely deceased Upinder Kumar when he tried to overtake tractor trolley at a very high speed and in the process it struck the truck. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

(3.) Grievances of the appellants in the present appeal is two folds. Firstly, the findings on account of income assessed and dependency are stated to be perverse as the evidence on record showing the income of the deceased Upinder Kumar, in the form of assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been misread and secondly, the question of application of multiplier considering the age of the deceased, who was 30 years old at the time of accident and death. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants is that a multiplier of at least 20 should have been applied, keeping in view the age of the deceased and also of claimants, being his young wife and two minor children. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the award of the Tribunal as well as the relevant evidence on record.