JUDGMENT
N.C. Jain, J.
1. By this judgment I would be disposing of three F.A.O. Nos. 862, 863 and 864 all of the year 1984 as they arise out of an accident which took place on 11.7.1981. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief as under:
Basant Lal Bhatia, one of the appellants herein, was driving scooter No. CHG 1781 on Madhya Marg. He was coming from the railway station side towards Sector 17, Chandigarh, accompanied by his wife Kailash Bhatia who was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. When Basant Lal Bhatia reached the crossing of Sectors 26, 27, 28 and Grain Market and was going to proceed, after he had negotiated the whole of roundabout, a bus bearing No. CHW 3592 came from the southern side, that is, in between Sectors 27 and 28. The driver of the bus did not blow any horn and struck the bus into the scooter killing the wife of Basant Lal Bhatia, Kailash Bhatia. It was the case of the claimants that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus on account of which Basant Lal Bhatia suffered injuries, besides the scooter belonging to Surjit Kumar Kaura, was damaged. In this very accident as has been observed above, the wife of Basant Lal Bhatia lost her life.
2. Three claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. Claim Petition M.A.C.T. No. 2 of 1982 was preferred by Basant Lal Bhatia alone claiming compensation for the injuries which he suffered in the accident. Claim Petition M.A.C.T. No. 3 of 1982 was filed by Surjit Kumar Kaura claiming compensation for the damage to his scooter which was being driven by Basant Lal Bhatia and in M.A.C.T. No. 4 of 1982, Basant Lal Bhatia along with his son and daughter claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Kailash Bhatia. As has been observed above, all the three claim petitions have been disposed of by a single judgment by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and, therefore, this Court is also disposing of all the three appeals by a single judgment.
3. The Tribunal on the basis of rival contentions between the parties framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bhagwan Singh, driver?
(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
(3) Relief.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under issue No. 1 found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bhagwan Singh, driver. While deciding issue No. 2 in M.A.C.T. No. 2 of 1982 the Tribunal found that the appellant Basant Lal Bhatia was not entitled to any compensation. In M.A.C.T. No. 3 of 1982 Surjit Kumar Kaura was found entitled to the grant of compensation of Rs. 500/-. In M.A.C.T. No. 4 of 1982 the husband and his two children have been found entitled to the compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. In the first instance, I would be disposing of the appeal filed by Surjit Kumar Kaura (F.A.O. No. 863 of 1984 in M.A.C.T. No. 3 of 1982) who claimed a sum of Rs. 2.700/- which he had to incur on account of repair on his scooter. The Tribunal has determined the pecuniary loss of the claimant at Rs. 500/-. It has been found by the Tribunal that no receipts or cash memos of the spare parts have been brought on the record of the case and that no receipt about the repainting or denting have been produced and, therefore, the amount claimed was highly excessive. It has been argued by Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.T. No. 3 of 1982, that even if no receipts or cash memos for the spare parts have been produced on the record of the case, it could not be presumed that the necessary repairs were not effected. It has been argued that there is nothing against Mukesh Kumar, PW 10, who has not only repaired the scooter but through whom denting and painting charges were also paid.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the entire finding in this respect of the Tribunal is not sustainable. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve the mechanic Mukesh Kumar who had repaired the scooter. He has categorically stated that he had charged Rs. 700/- for the repair of the scooter and Rs. 500/- were charged by the person who did denting and painting job and that the amount of Rs. 500 was paid through him. In the cross-examination of Mukesh Kumar nothing could be elicited which would make his sworn testimony unworthy of reliance. Consequently, I hold that repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,200/- are proved. As regards the purchase of spare parts, admittedly, no cash memo or receipt has been produced. In view thereof, this Court would be disinclined to allow the sum of Rs. 1.500/-. However, some spare parts have been changed which has been done by Mukesh Kumar who has stated that the cost of spare parts of the scooter replaced by him must be about Rs. 1.500/-. Even if it is presumed that no receipts or cash memos were forthcoming, yet his statement could not be disbelieved that he had changed the spare parts. Even if it is presumed that the costs of spare parts of Rs. 1,500/- has been described to be on the higher side, this Court would be inclined to accept the cost of spare parts at Rs. 500/-. Consequently, I allow the claim of Surjit Kumar Kaura to the extent of Rs. 1,700/- in all out of which Rs. 1,200/- is towards the cost of repairs and Rs. 500/- is towards the cost of spare parts. Consequently, the appeal filed by him is allowed to the extent indicated above.
6. As regards F.A.O. No. 862 of 1984 arising out of M.A.C.T. No. 2 of 1982 in which Basant Lal Bhatia has claimed compensation for the injuries caused to him on account of the accident, Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant, has conceded that this Court may not go into the question of injuries suffered by him in view of the finding recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the above-mentioned appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
7. This leads me to decide the F.A.O. No. 864 of 1984 arising out of M.A.C.T. No. 4 of 1982 in which Basant Lal Bhatia along with his two children has claimed compensation for the death of his wife. The Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only. The learned Counsel has placed firm reliance upon Sunny Chug v. Darshan Lal, 1987 ACJ 812 (P&H) and contended that even the loss of a housewife who may not be earning does deprive the husband and the children of the service which she renders as a housewife, may be, those services are rendered gratuitously. It has been held in Sunny Chug’s case (supra) that the services that a housewife provides for the household even though rendered gratuitously do indeed have a monetary value in respect of which compensation is payable and the beneficiaries of such services are the husband and the children. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, S.S. Sodhi, J. determined compensation payable for the death of a housewife at Rs. 50,000/-. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in Sunny Chug’s case (supra). Since S.S. Sodhi, J. in Sunny Chug’s case (supra) was deciding a case of a housewife who was not earning anything at the time of death and therefore the ratio laid down therein is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and while following the same, this Court determines the amount of compensation payable for the death of Kailash Bhatia at Rs. 50,000/-. The claimants shall also be paid 12 per cent interest from the date of the application. Out of the amount so awarded, a sum of Rs. 30.000/- along with interest on the said amount would be given to Soma Bhatia, daughter of Basant Lal Bhatia, whereas another sum of Rs. 15,000/- would be given to his son Sandeep Bhatia along with interest on the said amount. Rest of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest would be given to Basant Lal Bhatia, husband of the deceased. The husband is being given meagre amount for the simple reason that he has remarried.
8. In a nutshell, the appeal filed by Basant Lal Bhatia, that is, F.A.O. No. 862 of 1984 is dismissed whereas remaining two F.A.O. Nos. 863 of 1984 and 864 of 1984 are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs in any appeal.