MANINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, dated June 4, 1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 96,000/- was awarded as compensation.

(2.) THE facts regarding the accident are no more in dispute. The only controversy relates to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that it has been wrongly held by the Tribunal that the liability of the claimants and the respondents was half and half in causing the accident. According to the learned Counsel, there was no evidence to this effect In any case, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the driver of the jeep was also equally negligent, even then, the amount of compensation could not be reduced by the Tribunal because Gurindir Singh Dhindsa was a passenger in the jeep and, therefore, he was entitled to the lull amount of compensation. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Jagdeep Singh v. Anokh Singh 1987 Accidents Claims Journal 373. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount of compensation has been wrongly determined. The deceased was getting only Rs. 750/-per month and there was no cogent evidence to hold that he was getting Rs. 1,100/-per month. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, it could not be held that he was paying Rs. 1,000/- to his family for maintenance. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, at the most, Rs. 700/- could be said to be his dependency per month and, therefore, by applying a multiplier of 16, the amount came to Rs. 1,34,400/-. According to the learned Counsel because of the contributory negligence of Surjit Singh, PW 3, the jeep driver, the claimants were entitled to only half of the said amount.