BAYA Vs. RATANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 20.10.94, at about 8.30 a.m., in morning ,son of appellants died of injuries sustained in an accident involving tanker No. RJQ 4290. Parents of the deceased appellants, demanding compensation Rs.9,00,000/- as loss of earning which could have been available to them and Rs.1,11,000/- on other counts, instituted claim petition No.102/95. According to claim, the deceased their son, was 18 years at that time on 20.10.94 at about 8.30 a.m., after attending his ill mother, admitted in hospital, was coming on cycle and was on his right side when from behind him, claiming tanker RJQ 4290 over run him and the accident occurred only because of the negligence of the driver of the tanker which owned by respondent No.2 and insured with R3. Describing average age of family members as 75 years, claimed (i) Rs.9,00,000/- as dependency on earning, (ii) Rs.700/- as cost of the damaged cycle etc. (iii) funeral and other expenses Rs.10,000/-, (iv) for agony, Rs.1,00,000/-, totaling Rs.10,11,000/-. Asserted that deceased doing wooden carpentry and furniture work, was earning Rs.2500 3000 per month. R2 the insurer admitting insurance, disputed all above and asserted that the amount claimed is inordinately exaggerated, that the driver had no valid license and the vehicle driven in contravention of policy conditions, insurer disowned any liability.

(2.) THE driver and owner of the vehicle, in the reply, averred that driver was cautiously carefully driving but the deceased, while crossing road, suddenly came from right side of the vehicle and as he suddenly tried to cross the road, so the accident occurred. Also stated that as the deceased was a student, he could not have and not was earning. Stated that the driver possessed valid license and that expenses and other amounts stated, are immaterial.

(3.) PER father of deceased P1, he himself doing carpenter work, was earning Rs.150/- per day and that son also was a student in a school. According to witness, he did job of furniture making and other wooden work and the son also of furniture work, including door frame who earning Rs.100/- daily, and used to give this amount to him. When father who per him in late thirties at that time, doing same work, was earning Rs.150/- per day, then, in absence of specific acceptable evidence, is very hard to accept earning of son as Rs.100/- per day who relatively less skilled and at best in learning process. In deciding total compensation, also is relevant that in normal course and because of very likely events, what portion of earning, of who, for whom, upto what time or how many years and to what extent, dependency likely can be. Taking all these into account, in the opinion of the Court, dependency of parents taken at Rs.700/- and compensation awarded using multiplier 16, seems to be very just and reasonable. In other heads, awarded are Rs.13000/-. The conclusions and reasons of the tribunal are very reasoned one. On given facts and above circumstances, total compensation Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% being just and reasonable, is not to be interfered with.