SURJIT KAUR Vs. GARMAIL SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the filing of this Letters Patent appeal are that Milkha Singh deceased, who was living with his daughter Surjit Kaur at Pul Sudhar in district Ludhiana, was lying asleep on the night intervening May 30 and 31, 1969, at a distance of about 40 feet from the main road. Military truck No. TP 1302 after colliding with two kiker trees over -ran the cot on which Milkha Singh was sleeping. Because of the crushing by the truck, Milkha Singh died there and then. Gurmail Singh, who in a drunken condition was at the steering wheel of the truck and his two unconscious companions, were removed from the truck. On prosecution for causing the death of Milkha Singh due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. TP 1302, Gurmail Singh was convicted by the criminal Court. Surjit Kaur Appellant, who is the daughter of Milkha Singh and with whom he was living at the time of his death, filed a petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (herein after called the Tribunal) claiming compensation as the life of her father had been cut short by rash and negligent act of Gurmail Singh. Gurmail Singh, who is an employee of the Defence Force, was driving the truck in the discharge of his duties. He alongwith the Union of India were arrayed as Respondent.

(2.) THE claim was contested by the Union of India on the ground that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck without any authority and the deceased was also negli' gent in sleeping at a distance of only 40 feet from the main road. The Respondents also contested the claim of the Appellant on the ground that she was not dependent on the deceased.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant has addressed up on four points for the enhancement of the compensation: (i) that the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per mensem, but the learned Single Judge has reduced it to Rs. 200/ - only on surmises; (ii) that the age of the deceased was wrongly assessed on the higher side by the learned Single Judge; (iii) that - the amount of Rs. 2,200/ - allowed by the learned Single Judge for the loss of the love and affection was too low; and (iv) that no interest was allowed on the amount of compensation.