STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reasoning in F.A.O. No. 187 of 1991 will apply in this case insofar as it relates to the negligence on the part of the truck driver which led to the accident and also vicarious liability of the appellant. In fact the claimant No. 1 in this case is the same as the claimant in F.A.O. No. 187 of 1991, he being the husband of the deceased in the present case. In that case the deceased was a minor daughter, one of the children of the claimant No. 1. In this case the other children of the claimant No. 1 have also joined as claimants as the claim is with regard to the wife of the claimant No. 1 who died in the

(2.) THE Tribunal has taken the view that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month by doing various domestic and agricultural work to the prosperity of the family. However, he adopted a multiplicand of Rs. 400 per month for calculating the loss of dependency to the claimants. Thus, according to the Tribunal the annual loss would come to Rs. 4,800 and by multiplying the same by 18 he arrived at a sum of Rs. 86,400. He added a sum of Rs. 30,000 as loss of a living being of the family, Rs. 3,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost, thus making a total sum of Rs. 1,20,400. We can straightaway point out that the award of Rs. 30,000 for the loss of living being of the family and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost is unsustainable.

(3.) IN this case it is stated that the deceased was a co owner of an orchard and the income therefrom was about Rs. 20,000 per annum. It cannot be said that the family has lost that income on account of the death of the deceased as the legal representatives of the deceased would certainly be inheriting the share of the deceased which she had in the orchard and that income would be intact in the hands of the claimants.