ARUN GUPTA Vs. SANSAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the claimants, as they are aggrieved by quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Deceased Surinder Kumar Gupta was employed as General Manager with H.P. State Financial Corporation, whose Managing Director has been impleaded as the respondent No. 4 in the appeal. On 25.3.1998, he was travelling by the car of his employer, i.e., H.P. State Financial Corporation, bearing registration No. HP-03 1290, in connection with some official tour. The car was being driven by Mangat Ram, respondent No. 5 herein. It collided with a truck bearing registration No. HP-31 2133. Truck was owned by respondent Sansar Chand and was being driven by the respondent Brij Lal. It was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., impleaded as respondent No. 3. The car, by which the deceased was travelling was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 6. As a result of the accident, Surinder Kumar Gupta died. He was 52 years of age at the time of the fatal accident. His monthly income on account of salary was around Rs. 25,000, inclusive of bonus. Claimants alleged that accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the car as also the truck. They filed a petition, under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000. Both the sets of the respondents contested the claim and denied that the cause of the accident was rash or negligent driving. Managing Director, H.P. State Financial Corporation, i.e., employer of the deceased stated in the reply that the deceased's monthly income from salary, as per revised pay scale, on the date of death was Rs. 20,310.

(3.) Learned Tribunal after holding the inquiry came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place because of rash or negligent driving of the car by the driver of the employer of the deceased and so the employer of the deceased, the driver of the car and the insurance company, with which the car was insured for third party risk, were liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, without referring to the evidence on record and just by hunch, concluded that the deceased might have been saving Rs. 5,000 per month out of his salary for the rainy days and adopted this assumed figure of Rs. 5,000 as the multiplicand or the datum figure and chose the multiplier of 11 years' purchase and named the resultant figure as the loss of dependency. To this figure, the Tribunal has added a sum of Rs. 50,000 on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000 on account of funeral and obsequies expenses and awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,27,000, along with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award.