SEEMA MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Kumar Malik, a Science Graduate from D.A.V. College, Amritsar, Guru Nanak Dev University and who had also obtained a Diploma in Textile Chemistry from Punjab State Board of Technical Education in 1st Division, met with an accident on 4th June, 1985. He died. He left behind his widow and an infant child and parents, who had crossed the age of fifty. The deceased was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. JKR 259, when he was near Tawi Bridge he was hit by an Army Truck No. 75-D19212/W. The death appeared to be instant. When the claim petition was preferred the plea taken was that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. Compensation was accordingly claimed. With a view to sustain the claim regarding the compensation, it was pleaded that the aforementioned Science Graduate with a Diploma in Textile Chemistry was carrying on his business of cloth merchant. This was from a shop located in Jammu. His income was put across at Rs. 5,000/- by two of the witnesses and Rs. 6,000/- per month by another witness. He was found to be paying a sum of Rs. 800/- as rent for residential accommodation and in this manner the Tribunal observed, "His income could not have been less than Rs. 3,000/-. This figure was taken note of. The personal expenses of the deceased and his widow were taken to be around 2/3rd and the dependency of the infant was put around Rs. 500/-. So far as parents are concerned, it was concluded that he must be contributing about Rs. 250/- for meeting the expenses which could have been incurred by the mother. As such, the dependency of the mother and the infant was fixed at Rs. 750/-. The annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 9,000/-. The multiplier of "15" was applied and the amount of compensation was accordingly awarded. The fact that the widow had remarried was taken no of and, therefore, no benefit of this was given to the minor. It was precisely for this reason an observation was made that the amount which the deceased must be spending on himself and the widow is required to be taken note of. Now this decision given by the Tribunal is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) SO far as the issue regarding negligence is concerned, this need not to be gone into as Union of India has not filed the appeal. Thus the only material issue is Issue No. 2, which is with regard to quantum of compensation. This would also require determination of the question as to whether a widow on remarriage disentitles herself to claim compensation on account of death of her husband.

(3.) R .W. Janak Kumar Khorana stated that the income of the deceased was around Rs. 5,000/- per month. Nasib Singh is another witness, who gave the same figure. Krishan Chand RW. stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. He stated that the deceased was contributing Rs. 4,000/- to his family. Dr. J.N. Raina, RW. stated that the deceased was paying rent for the residential accommodation. This was to the tune of Rs. 800/- p.m. If the figure as given by these witnesses is taken note of then the reasonable way of looking at would be to take into consideration the average of the two figures i.e., Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 6,000/-. The average of this would come to Rs. 5,500/-. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the deceased was paying Rs. 800/- p.m. as rent and, therefore, his income could not be less than Rs. 3,000/-. It was this figure which was taken note of. The evidence led by the claimants in the shape of statements of two witnesses is that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 5,000/- and one witness has stated that he was having income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus, if the totality of the evidence is taken note of then a finding can be recorded that the deceased was must be earning Rs. 5,500/-. He was paying Rs. 800/- as rent for residential accommodation and was also maintaining a motor cycle. Therefore, to repeat it would be apt to hold that the deceased was having income of Rs. 5,500/- p.m. If out of this amount of Rs. 5,500/- a sum of Rs. 800/- is deducted as rent for residential accommodation then the figure would come to Rs. 4,700/-. Out of this amount the deceased would be incurring one-third amount on himself. If amount spent on petrol and other small expenses is taken note of then Rs. 1,700/- can be said to be the amount which deceased must have been spending upon himself. Thus the deceased must be contributing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the family. Therefore, this is the figure which is required as contribution to the family to be taken note of. As a matter of fact this is the figure indicated by the Tribunal also, but the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that out of this the deceased must be spending 2/3rd of the income on himself and on his wife. This conclusion in my opinion is not apt. The deceased was a Science Graduate and had attained proficiency in Textile Chemistry. The modern trend to take care of the children is a factor which cannot be ignored. Therefore, it would be apt to hold that the deceased was having income of Rs, 5,500/-. After paying rent of Rs. 800/- for hiring residential accommodation, he was having the balance of Rs. 4,700/-. Rs. 1,700/- excluded out of this amount. The deceased was thus contributing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for the family. The annual dependency of the family would come to Rs. 36,000/-. The deceased was of the age of 33 years. It is thought apt to apply a multiplier of '15'. In this way the total amount of compensation which would come to be Rs. 5,76,000/-. Thus the enhancement to the extent of Rs. 4,41,000/- is made. On this enhanced amount the rate of interest would be 9% with effect from the date of institution of the application.