SHEELA RANI Vs. SARWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimants being the mother, widow and minor children of Kundan Lal Khanna deceased, who was killed while travelling in the Haryana Roadways bus HRU 2806 when it was involved in an accident with the truck JKQ 7031 coming from the opposite direction. This happened at about 4. 30 a. m. on February 13, 1983 in the area of village Bara near Sirhind. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. A sum of Rs. 67,200/-was awarded as compensation to the claimants.

(2.) A reference to the evidence on record would show that Kundan Lal Khanna deceased was about 43 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his widow Sheela Rani, four sons and two daughters ranging in age from 8 to 16 years, besides his 60 years old widowed mother, who were all dependent upon the deceased. Kundan Lal Khanna deceased was employed as a foreman with Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon and his salary as such was over Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is now well settled, as was laid down in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (Pandh), that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the person concerned and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then have to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. The suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependants, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors, such as, early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependants and their developing independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned.

(3.) A Division Bench of our High Court in Asha Rani v. Union of India 1983 ACJ 52 (Pandh), held that the normal multiplier should be 16 in such cases. It was so held after taking note of Lachman Singh's case 1979 ACJ 170 (Pandh ).