PUSHPA SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the widow, three minor sons and the parents of Jagdish Kumar Sharma who died as a result of an accident which took place on 11-6-81 at about 4.00 PM Bus No. PUG-1798 of the Punjab Roadways left the Chandigarh Bus Stand on its way to Batala. When it was on the road between Sectors 21 and 22, it suddenly turned to its right presumably to avoid a rehra going ahead of it, went to the extreme right and hit against the scooter coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the scooter Jagdish Kumar Sharma, who was employed as Senior Assistant in the High Court, died as a result of this accident. The claim applications under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by the dependents of both the deceased which were decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 28-4-1982. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,51,200/- as compensation to the appellants because of the death of Jagdish Kumar Sharma. This amount of compensation was considered inadequate by them and they preferred the present appeal for its enhancement.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal was wrong in its conclusion that the salary payable to the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 880.60. In fact, as a result of revision of pay scales with effect from 1-1-1978 his salary was Rs. 1210/- per month. I have gone through the statement of Ajit Singh, P.W. 5, Senior Assistant in the Establishment Branch of the High Court. The contention of the learned Counsel is clearly borne out from it. The learned Tribunal, therefore, went wrong in concluding that the deceased would be spending Rs. 700/- per month on his dependents. In my view, the loss to the dependents can in no way be less than Rs. 1000/- per month.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has awarded interest to the appellants at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim application preferred before it. However, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 397. I consider it appropriate to award interest to the appellants on the amount of compensation determined above from the date of the accident, i.e. 11-6-1981, at the rate of 12% per annum.