Last Updated on
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by Bhika Ram and Sarti Devi (hereinafter described as the appellants) directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind dated 27.3.1985. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the appellants with proportionate costs with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. It was directed that Rs. 15,000/- already allowed as interim claim, if paid, will be deducted from the same.
2. The sole controversy in the present appeal is, as to whether the compensation awarded is adequate or not. The appellants’ case was that the deceased was returning from Sugar Mills, Jhang alongwith Raj Kumar. When deceased was walking on the road-side holding the handle of his cycle in his hand, respondent No. 3 who was driving the Bus No. HRU-1508 in a rash and negligent manner struck against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased expired at Civil Hospital, Jind on 28.6.1984 at 8.45 A.M.
3. The deceased is stated to be 18 years of age at that time. He was cultivating the land and used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month. Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-was claimed by the appellants, who are old parents of the deceased.
4. The respondents contested the assertions. It was pointed out that a truck had come from the opposite side. All of sudden, a person who was sitting on the carrier of the cycle jumped, as a result of which the deceased lost control and struck with the left side corner of the Bus and sustained injuries. The defence of the driver of the bus was that no such accident took place.
5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide the award held that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. However, it was held that the monthly income of the deceased was only Rs. 300/- per month. He must be spending Rs. 200/- per month for his aged parents and consequently taking up the multiplier of 8, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- had been awarded.
6. In this Court, there was no conlroversy raised with respect to the multiplier adopted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or the fact that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3. As mentioned above and re-mentioned at the risk of repetition, the sole question, thus, for determination is as to if the compensation awarded is adequate.
7. It is in evidence of Bhika Ram-appellant that the deceased used to provide food and clothing to the appellants. The deceased used to cultivate the land and sell milk and earn about Rs. 1200/- per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal noted that the deceased was an able body person. Once it is so, it cannot be believed that he would earn only Rs. 300/- per month. Keeping in view that he was young in age and still working be-
sides tilling the land, his income could not be less than a working daily wager would get at that time. His daily income is, therefore, taken to be Rs. 207- per day. In other words, Rs. 600/- per month. If he spent a part of it for himself, still one can conveniently lake that he would spend little more than 2/3rd for his parents and that way come to Rs. 427/- per month as a contribution for maintenance of his old parents, who are the appellants. In that view of the matter, the compensation must be taken to be Rs. 40,000/-.
To that extent, therefore, the appeal is allowed and the award is modified to Rs. 40,000/- with proportionate costs with no other modification in the impugned award.
8. Appeal allowed.