ARJAN SINGH Vs. MITTER PAUL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ludhiana, (hereinafter called the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs. 50,500/- with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum was allowed by way of compensation on account of the death of Kuldip Singh.

(2.) DUE to the accident on November 30, 1979 between trucks Nos. PUG-7907 and PUC-7225, Kuldip Singh, aged 20 years, a student of B.A. final, died on December 8, 1979. His parents, Arjun Singh and Shrimati Harbans Kaur, filed the claim petition wherein a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation on account of his death. The claim petition was contested on behalf of the owners of the truck and the insurance company. On trial, the Tribunal found that the accident in which Kuldip Singh had died was caused by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUG-7907 driven by Dharam Vir and not on account of any rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUC-7225, driven by Ranjit Singh. As regards the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was a source of financial help to his parents to the extent of Rs. 250/- per month as he was helping his father in driving the tractor for which now he had to employ a driver after the death of his son on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. According to the Tribunal, Kuldip Singh, deceased, was not a whole time worker and. therefore, he was a source of financial help to his parents to the extent of Rs. 250/- per month only. Consequently, by adopting a multiplier of 16 (sixteen), & sum of Rs. 48,000/- was determined to be the compensation payable to. the claimants. A sum of Rs. 2,500/- was also added on account of the expenses on medical treatment thereto. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 50,500/- was held to be the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the future prospects of the deceased Kuldip Singh have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel, he was a bright student. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Punjab State Students Federation of India, and the Secretary of the Students Union of modi College, Patiala. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the annual dependency determined at Rs. 3,000/- was most inadequate on the facts and circumstances of this case. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Mangaldas Mohanlal v. Union of India , Sunanda v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation , Kuldip Singh v. Gurmait Singh and Satya Wati Pathak v. Hari Ram .