SAMITRA DEVI Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in appeal here is to the award of Rs. 35,280/ - as compensation to the mother, widow and children of Kishan Chand deceased and Rs. 50,400/ - to the mother, widow and children of Lakhbir Singh deceased, who were both killed in an accident with a tractor -trolley at Malout. This accident occurred at about 6.15 p.m. on September 19, 1982 near the turning of the old bus stand at Malout. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by Girdhari Lal while driving the tractor PBX 3208. Liability for the compensation awarded was fastened upon Girdhari Lal as also Ram Narain and Sham Sunder, the owners of the tractor. The insurance company was absolved from liability as Girdhari Lal who caused the accident did not hold a valid driving licence.

(2.) IN appeal here, an attempt was, in the first instance, made to question the identity of the offending tractor. Capital was sought to be made of the fact that in the claim application, the number of the offending tractor was given as PBS 3208, whereas the tractor in respect of which compensation has been awarded, was found by the Tribunal to be PBX 3208. On the face of it, this is but an attempt to take advantage of what was apparently a mere clerical error. It is pertinent to note that the tractor, after causing the accident was left at the spot and it was from there that it was recovered by the police and later taken to the police station where it was examined by the police mechanic. The engine number and the chassis number of the tractor as given in the report of the police mechanic, AW Manjit Singh, is the same as that of the tractor PBX 3208, which admittedly belongs to Respondents Ram Narain and Sham Sunder. The error, on the part of the claimants in mentioning the number of the offending tractor, on the claim application as PBS 3208 instead of PBX 3208 is thus not a matter of any consequence. It would also be pertinent to note that no such point finds mention in the order of the Tribunal. It is apparent, therefore, that it was for the first time in appeal that such a plea was thought out and sought to be raised.

(3.) THE claimants, on their part, seek enhanced compensation. A reference to the record would show that Kishan Chand deceased was about 48 -years of age at the time of his death. He was a revenue patwari and his total emoluments, at the time of his death, were little over Rs 880/ - per month. He died leaving behind his mother, his widow and three sons, who were all dependent upon him. Kishan Chand had another ten years' service before attaining the age of superannuation. Considering the nature of the post held by the deceased and the work done by him, it is likely that even after retirement, he could have been gainfully employed for some more years though his emoluments may not have been as much as those while in service. Taking, therefore, an overall view of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 ACJ 170 (P &H) 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied and the dependency deserves to be assessed at around Rs. 6,000/ - per annum. So computed, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 96,000/ - which may be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rs. one lac only). The compensation payable to the claimants in the case of Kishan Chand deceased is accordingly enhanced to this extent.