RESHMA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the night between 9 and 10.9.83, Jagdish Lal was driving truck No. HRN 6137 on Hissar-Sirsa Road. At about 4 a.m. on 10.9.1983, another truck bearing registration No. HRH 7256 being driven by respondent Subhash rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and collided with the truck driven by Jagdish Lal. Jagdish Lai sustained multiple injuries and died. The widow, four minor children and the mother of the deceased filed a claim petitich seeking compensation for the death of Jagdish Lal.

(2.) Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the trucks. Claims Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 28 years an4 was earning Rs. 900 per month as truck driver. Dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 600 per month after coming to the conclusion that the deceased might have been spending a sum of Rs. 300 on himself. Claims Tribunal chose a multiplier of 16. On calculation, the amount would come to Rs. 1,15,200. Claims Tribunal, however, in view of its finding that the accident took place due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the trucks, reduced this amount by half and awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600 with interest by award dated 16.12.1985. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants by reference to a decision of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bimlesh, 1991 ACJ 36 (P&H), wherein the respondent insurance company had challenged the award dated 16.12.1985 of the Claims Tribunal in respect of the same accident submitted that the deceased was not negligent in driving his truck and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the trucks has been reversed by this court in the above said appeal. Learned counsel also submitted that the deceased left behind his widow, four children and an old age mother and thus having regard to the number of dependants, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the deceased might have been spending Rs. 300 on himself. Submission of the learned counsel, in other words, is that the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the dependency of the claimants at a higher amount.