CHANDER Vs. BHAWANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of the same award and they are disposed of by one judgment. THESE appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein-after called the 'act), against the award, dated December 27, 1985 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in case No. 69/1983. It will suffice to state for the purpose of these appeals that deceased Shobhraj, who was driving his car, while returning from Ajmer to Jaipur, alongwith his wife appellant Smt. Deepa and other appellants Shri Chander and Smt. Vandana, met with an accident near Hira pura, on Ajmer Road with truck, which was alleged to be driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed. It is further stated that the truck came on the wrong side and dashed against car with such a force that the roof of the car ripped open and the car was dragged to a distance, the occupants of the car were thrown after the impact the truck went to a distance of 50' to 60' and turned turtle. The driver of the truck after the accident ran way from the site. After recording evidence of all the parties and hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded different amounts to different claimants. In appeal No. 112/1986, in which the compensation was claimed on account of death of the deceased person, the amount of 1,10,000/- was awarded to the claimants In appeal No. 111/1986, Smt Deepa claimed compensation on account of injuries recevied by car and she was awarded amount of Rs. 10,000/- on this count. In appeal No. 110/1986, Chander, another injured occupant of the* car awarded Rs. 20,000/-, and his wife Smt. Vandana, on account of some injuries, awarded amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The contention of Sh. H. M. Bhargava learned counsel appearing for Smt. Deepa in her both appeals is that the only point for consideration in all these appeals is regarding enhancement of the compensation awarded as no appeal against the award has been filed by any of the respondents. It is submitted that it has been proved on the basis of income-tax-returns that the deceased was doing textile business from which his net income was Rs. 26, 460/ per year which comes to Rs. 2,000/- p. m. It is pointed out that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that since the textile shop was still running after death of the deceased Shobhraj, therefore, the dependents are not entitled to get compensation on the amount of the earning of deceased person. The Tribunal in its own imagination thought that the claimants are entitled to receive compen-sation on amount of gross income of Rs. 8,000/- p. m. , which deceased Shobhraj would have earned as a good-sales man while he worked on the textile shop, owned by him. Therefore, the Tribunal after taking amount of Rs. 250/- as personal expenses, fixed the amount of Rs. 550/- as dependency for the claimants. The Tribunal has stated, looking to the trend of the various courts the span of life can be fixed at 65 years but applied multiplier of 15 years even though the deceased was only 38 years at the time of accident. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that the whole process of the Tribunal for arriving at the income of the deceased ignoring the income proved by income-tax returns, is fallacious and the 15 years multiplier applied is also very low, keeping in view the age of 38 years of deceased and the fact that the Tribunal it self held that span of life usually is 65 years age. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a token amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium to the widow who was 30 years old at the time of accident and a nominal amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for loss of love and affection to the mother, to the deceased. It is submitted that on account of this unfortunate accident, there is no child in the house of the deceased and therefore, the growth of the family has come to an end. The contention of the learned counsel is that the compensation should be assessed at the proved income of the deceased which is Rs. 2250/- p. m. and after deducting l/3rd amount, the net amount of dependency comes to Rs. 14,060/- p. m. It is submitted that when the Tribunal has itself come to the conclusion that the life span should be placed at 65 years there is no reason why the multiplier of 27 years be not applied to this income for calculating the pecuniary loss under this head.

(2.) DR. Vivekanand A. W. 4, was examined, who has proved Ex. 45, the injury report and has stated that one tooth of the claimant was completely broken, two became loose and another tooth ought to be taken out. Apart from this, she received injuries on nose, upper lip, knee and elbow of the hand. It is, therefore, submitted that the face of the claimant was disfigured and a meagre compensation of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. It is contended by the learned counsel that it has been held by various courts that in case of injuries, the compensation granted to the claimants has to be on higher side because the inju-edperson has to live with these organs and suffer the agony for whole life. Shri Satyawan Khemchandani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Chander, in appeal No. 110/86 has contended that the amount of* compensation awarded to the appellant is not only grossly low but even the evidence on record has not been taken into consideration while arriving at the proper compensation that may be awarded to the appellant. It is contended that the appellant was running a handloom shop at Bhilwara and earning Rs. 1500/- p. m. It has come in evidence that the shop was completely closed for about a period of six months, whild the appellant was under treatment and admitted for long time in hospital at Jaipur and Ajmer but nothing has been awarded to the appellant on this court. It is also contended that the appellant suffered grievous injuries on his right leg in which steel plate has to be fixed at three places and it is alleged that his leg has shorten by 1", thus the appellant has become permanently physically handicaped person and the compensation awarded to the appellant is grossly inadequate, keeping the injuries in view. Apart from the above injuries the appellant sufferred fracture in his hand also. It is further submitted that the appellant's mandible bones of the face were also broken and he had to undergo plastic surgery on this account. It has come into the evidence that his face had to be tied by wire for three months and he had to live only on liquid diet for this period. Since the accident occurred near Hira Pura, he was first admitted in S. M. S. Hospital and thereafter in J. LN. Hospital, Ajmer, as an indoor patient for a long period. This also shows that the appellant had to make expenses on his relatives, who come and attended upon him to Jaipur as well as other hospital at Ajmer. It is also contended that the Tribunal did not give him chance to get the certificate of doctor issued regarding appellant's having become handicap, proved, and the same has not been taken into consideration while awarding compensationt to the appellant. It is also submitted that even though all the medical bills, amounting to Rs. 5,000/- Ex. 1 to Ex. 37 were produced before the Tribunal, have also been not considered while fixing the amount of compensation. It is, therefore, submitted that amount of Rs 1. 05,000/- as claimed by the appellant should be awarded to him as he will have to suffer on account of these grievous injuries throughout his life.

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly the shop is run even after the death of the deceased person, who was otherwise running the same. If after the death of the husband, the widow is courageous to run the business of cloth and is able to earn something out of the shop and maintain her family, it cannot be said that the income derived by her is on account of death of her husband and therefore, the same may be deducted from the amount of compensation which may be awarded to the appellants. This cannot be termed in any case to be a benefit that she may be deriving on account of death of her husband. On the contrary it is commandable that the widow has turned up enough courage to keep the pot boiling and has been able to carry on the business. No business can be run while depending only on servants but the owner has to take interest personally and see that the business gives some profit. It can, therefore, be safely said that whatever income, which has not come on the record as no evidence was produced by the respondents, is derived by the appellant due to her own work and therefore, this amount should not be deducted from the amount of dependency that may be calculated for awarding compensation.