JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. On March 22, 1984 Aruna Aggarwal wife of the claimant Vishwa Bandhu, their son Deepak and two others Ashish, and Ashok Kumar were coming from Jammu and going towards Moga in a car. When the car reached village Ghasitpur, truck No. PBE 77S2 driven by Baljit Singh respondent came from the opposite side. In the head on collision that followed Aruna Aggarwal, Deepak and Ashok Kumar were killed whereas Ashish was admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Various claim Petitions were thereafter filed, they being M.A.C.T. Case No. 16 of 1984 filed by Vishwa Bandhu and Vaneet Aggarwal, the husband and minor son of the deceased Aruna Aggarwal for the death of Aruna Aggarwal and M.A.C.T. Case No. 18-A of 1984 filed by Vishwa Bandhu claiming compensation for the death of his son Deepak. Two other claim petitions were also filed by the dependents of the other Victims but they are not relevant for the disposal of this appeal.
2. Respondent Nos 1 and 2 that is the driver of the truck and the New India Assurance Company filed separate replies wherein it was denied that any mishap had taken place as alleged or that the truck No. PBE 7752 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It was further pleaded that in case it was found that the accident had taken place it was due to the rash and negligent driving by the car driver. It was however admitted that truck No. PBE 7752 had been insured with the appellant-New India Assurance Company.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
1. Whether Deepak died because of the rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBE 7752 on 22.3.1984 in the area of Ghasitpur ? OPA.
2. Whether the rash and negligent driving of that truck by Baljit Singh was the direct consequence of the death of Deepak ? OPA.
3. Whether the applicant is the legal heir of Deepak ? OPA.
4. To what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to ? If so from whom? OPA.
5. Whether the offending truck was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd., Amritsar ? OPA.
6. Relief.
4. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Baljit Singh and for arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal relied primarily on the evidence of Bhahadur Singh AW. The Tribunal then went into the question of the compensation to be awarded with respect in each of the claim petitions and came to the conclusion that the claim petitions with regard to Aruna Aggarwal and Deepak were liable to be allowed. The Tribunal accordingly granted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to Vishwa Bandhu and Rs. 30,000/- to Vineet making a total of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the husband and son of Aruna Aggarwal, respectively, for the loss suffered by them on account of her death on the premise that she had been serving them to the June of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per mensem. The Tribunal also too .into consideration that some amount would have been spent by the family on the treatment of Aruna Aggarwal between the date of the accident i.e. March 231, 1984 and the date of her death i.e. April 28, 1984. The present appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company in MACT Case No. 16 of 1984, whereas cross-objections have been filed in this appeal by the claimants. Both these matters are being disposed of by this judgment.
5. I have gone through the award of the Tribunal and have also considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties. Mr. Saini, the learned counsel for the cross-objectors has argued that it had come in evidence that Aruna Aggarwal was a partner in the family business and her income for the year 1982-83 had been assessed at Rs. 38,520/ and she had been assessed frequently for almost that amount and as such a higher compensation ought to have been given to the claimants. I have considered this argument of the learned counsel and find no merit in it. There is no evidence to show that Aruna Aggarwal was involved in the family business and had been conducting it herself It is therefore, clear that the income that would accrue to her as a partner would go to her heirs and there would be no loss to her estate.
6. It has then been urged by Mr. Saini that a sum of Rs. 500/- assessed by the Tribunal as her contribution to the family home was wholly insufficient and as the family was well off it was expected to maintain a high standard of living, some enhancement required in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. This argument has merit. It has come in the evidence that after the accident, Aruna Aggarwal had been treated in the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and the S.G.T.B. Hospital Amritsar in the private wards, which goes to show that the family was extremely well-off. It has also come in evidence that Aruna Aggarwal at the time of her death was about 28/30 years of age and she left behind her husband Vishwa Bandhu who at that time was 30 years and Vineet then aged 11 years. To my mind, therefore, it can be safely said that dependency of the family would have to be raised to Rs. 1000/-per month making it Rs. 12,000/- per year. I am however of the opinion that the multiplier of 20 utilised by the Tribunal was excessive in the light of the Supreme Court judgment on the point. This multiplier is accordingly reduced from 20 to 16 with the result that the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs. 1,92,000/-. This amount would be apportioned as under: Rs. 1 lac for the husband; Rs. 92,000/- for the son.
7. In addition, to the aforesaid amount, the claimants would also be entitled to interest in the manner determined by the Tribunal. As Vineet would now be a major, he would be paid the compensation in person, FAO No. 670 of 1986 is accordingly dismissed, whereas the cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed in the terms mentioned above.