JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the parents of Kamleshwari Mukhiya residents of Sarsa in the State of Bihar claiming compensation on account of the death of their son in an accident on 9.5.1983. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar vide its Award dated 26.4.1986 held them as technically entitled to a sum of Rs. 38,400/- by way of compensation but dismissed the claim petition on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants have filed the present appeal. Notice was issued in the appeal. The respondents have been duly served but none has put in appearance. As such the averments of the claimants-appellants in the memorandum of appeal remain unrebutted.
2. In the meanwhile Mr. Ravinder Seth, Advocate appearing for the appellants has also expired. As the appeal has been pending in this Court since the year 1986 and the appellants belong to the State of Bihar, it would even otherwise be a futile exercise to sent notices to them for the hearing of the appeal.
3. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
1A. Whether Kamleshwari Mukhiya had died in accident due to the rash and negligent act of driving of truck No. PJJ-252 by respondent No. 1? OPA
2. To what amount of compensation are the applicants entitled and from whom? OPA
3. Whether respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident? OP-respondent No. 1.
4. Whether respondents No. 1 and 2 had a valid route permit and a fitness certificate at the time of the accident and if not to what effect? OP-respondent No. 1 and 2.
5. Relief.
4. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal had held that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in which Kamleshwari Mukhiya had been travelling.
5. The Tribunal also held that as the accident had taken place on 9.5.1983 and the application for compensation had been filed on 28.1.1984, it was beyond the statutory period of limitation and no cogent reasons had been spelt out in the application for condonation of delay. The claim petition was accordingly held to be barred by time.
6. It is on this ground that as already mentioned above that the claim has been rejected.
7. I am, however, of the view, that the finding with regard to the application being time-barred is wholly misplaced.
8. It has come in the evidence that Kamleshwari Mukhiya was 30 years of age at the time of his death and was a labourer and thus belonged to the deprived section of society. It has also come in the evidence that the claimants belonged to Sarsa in the State of Bihar. To my mind, the incapacity of the claimants and their difficulty in coming to Jalandhar where the accident had happened was reason enough to condone the delay of a few months in the filing of the claim application. It is to be noted that in such matters a hypertechnical and pedantic view cannot be taken by the Tribunal as the actual difficulties of life cannot and should not be ignored.
9. The Tribunal has held that Kamleshwari Mukhiya was earning Rs. 400/- per month in his capacity as a Paledar, and after deducting some amount which he would be spending on himself, the loss to the applicants was Rs. 2400/- per annum. To my mind, this finding is also unrealistic. The Tribunal has observed that even a labourer in those days in State of Punjab could not have been earning less than Rs. 20/- per day or Rs. 600/- per month. I am of the opinion that in this situation, the deceased would have been spending 1/3rd of the total income on himself and remaining the balance sending to his parents.
10. In this view of the matter, the dependency of the claimants on the deceased
would come to Rs. 400 x 12 = Rs. 4800/- per annum and by applying a multiplier of 16,
the total compensation would come to Rs. 76,800/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 77,000/-.
To my mind, this is the amount that would be payable to the claimants. The claimants
would also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of
compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. All the respondents are held jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.