UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DERAM RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Balotra in MACT Case No. 36/89 decided on 17th Jan., 1992. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,03,840 as compensation. The appellant challenges quantum and disbursement of compensation to respondents No. 3 to 5.

(2.) IN an accident that took place on 3rd Feb., 1989, one Hanumana Ram, whose dependents are respondents No. 1 to 5, had died. The deceased at the time of his death was said to be of 15 years of age and earning about Rs. 14 per day at that age. The Tribunal by taking the life expectency at 70 years, as per the decision of this Court in Jamali and Ors. v. Lakha Ram and Ors. applying the multiplier of 53 found the gross amount of compensation at Rs. 1,24,800 by estimating the daily income on the basis of average earning which the deceased would have got on attaining the age of 18 and Rs. 5000 by way of solatium for the bereaved parents 20% of the same were deducted due to uncertainties of life and net compensation at Rs. 1,03,840 was awarded against the claim of Rs. 3,41,620.

(3.) A perusal of the Award goes to show that exactly the same principle to which the appellant has invited attention has been applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not taken into account the expectancy of the life of the parents but has taken into account life expectancy of the deceased for the purpose of applying the multiplier and that too as per the principle adopted by this Court in the aforesaid decision and therefore, I find no error on that account. The another contention which has been raised in the appeal is about the dependency of the parents and other brothers and sisters of the deceased. It is suffice to state that so far as the claim of the parents is concerned, it cannot be disputed and so far as the claim in favour of the minor brothers and sisters of the deceased is concerned, it does not affect the appellant. If there is any dispute about the dependency between the dependents interse, it is not a matter which affects the appellant as Indeminifier as against the owner of the vehicle. Moreover, it cannot be said that for a person to be dependent on the deceased, it must be strictly proved on the basis of the fact that the alleged dependent is one of heirs of the deceased or not. Where the deceased is sole or substantial earner of the family bread, then other members of the family, particularly the minor members of the family living with the deceased at the time of death and depending on earnings of deceased for their sustenance cannot be taken out of the purview of the dependents. Be that as it may, it does not give rise to the question of law substantially affecting the right of the appellant.