JUDGMENT
M.M. Punchhi, J.
1. This appeal operates in a narrow field. It stands settled, and remains undisputed, that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Punjab Roadways bus one Gurcharan Singh met his death and his claimants are the present appellants, being his widow, two minor sons and one minor daughter. They have been awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation, to which they seek enhancement by means of this appeal.
2. Undisputably, the deceased was a landowner owning about 15 acres of land which he used to self-cultivate. That land, as the evidence goes, is being kept under cultivation by the widow by engaging a servant. According to her, the income which her husband used to derive from the land was Rs. 17,000/- per year and now it had dwindled down to Rs. 7,000/-per year. The Tribunal found her statement to be discrepant with the statement of the brother of the deceased, who stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per year. On mute logic, which is not clear to me, the Tribunal had held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per year, and taking that he would have spent Rs. 1,000/- on himself, it fixed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2,000/- per year. Given a multiplier of 12, a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in this manner was awarded.
3. It is true that the estate of the deceased has fallen on the claimants and in the hard sense they are gainers thereby. But all the same they have lost two strong hands, a careful mind and a sincere worker who tilled the land for all with all his might, honesty and sincerity. A servant can never be a substitute to that human-being, if it comes to his earnings being measured. Even as an ordinary labourer, the deceased would have been worth Rs. 5,000/- per year, out of which he could have hardly spent anything on himself, for a village labourer does not have much to spend on himself and all what he earns goes towards his up-keep and the up-keep of his family. Yet making a little way in that direction for the purpose, it can safely be concluded that the deceased would be giving Rs. 4,000/- per year to his family, being the four claimants, and the remaining fifth thousand can be said to be his expected expenditure while alive. Thus, the dependency of the claimants per year is increased to Rs. 4,000/-. The normal multiplier in such a situation, when the deceased was a healthy youngman aged about 35, should have been 16 and not less. On that calculation, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 64,000/-. Besides that, they will also be entitled to 12 per cent interest per year from the date of the application till the date of payment of compensation.
4. Next is the turn of apportionment. I find no reason to distinguish between the claim of each claimant inter se. They shall share it equally. The interests of the minors however, need be protected. The widow-Baldev Kaur, appellant No. l, as their guardian is directed to deposit the compensation due to each minor appellant in a fixed deposit for 63 months with a scheduled bank and keep recovering the interest accruing thereon for the upkeep of the minors. After the expiry of 63 months, the fixed deposit be renewed like-wise in each case till the minors attain majority and thereafter each respective amount be placed in their hands.
5. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, but without any order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.