LAWS(HPH)-2005-1-8

LEELA DEVI Vs. NARINDER PAL SINGH

Decided On January 07, 2005
LEELA DEVI Appellant
V/S
NARINDER PAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased, Ganesh Kumar, who died in an accident on 10.3.1992. Deceased was on his bicycle when he was hit by scooter No. CH 01-B 4255. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Thereafter a claim petition was filed by appellants for grant of compensation. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the just and equitable compensation payable is only Rs. 29,000, but has awarded Rs. 50,000, i.e., the minimum amount which can be awarded as no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the amount of compensation granted was extremely meagre and the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future earning prospects of the deceased. The appellants submit that the compensation should be awarded in consonance with the judgments of Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) and M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 ACJ 1719 (SC).

(3.) In Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with cases relating to the death of the children of the employees of TISCO. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, was appointed by the court to determine the compensation and the Apex Court in cases of children between the ages of 10 and 15 awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000 out of which Rs. 3,60,000 was towards loss of monetary benefits and Rs. 50,000 as additional sum. It would be pertinent to mention that the judgment of the Supreme Court is based on totally different facts. In that case it had been proved that in TISCO there was a tradition that every employee could get one of his children employed in the company. It was under these circumstances that the loss of dependency was taken at Rs. 24,000 per month. This cannot apply as uniform rule in all the cases and each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case there is no evidence to show as to what the deceased who was a student of class 8 and aged about 13 years would have earned, in future.