JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana vide his award dated 16.8.1984.
2. In a nutshell facts of the case are that Gurmail Singh aged about 21 years was son of deceased claimant Chhota Singh and Nasib Kaur and was the brother of remaining claimants. These claimants claimed Rs. 2,30,000/- for this accident wherein Gurmail Singh died, his rehra was damaged and horse was also killed. They alleged that Gurmail Singh was a carts man and was doing the job of carrying bricks on his cart from one place to another. On 8.11.1982 Gurmail Singh was carrying bricks on his cart towards Khanna from the brick-kiln. Nazir Singh was following him. Gurmail Singh was knocked down by Bus No. PNZ 102 driven by respondent No. 1 Tarsem Singh rashly and negligently, causing his death and death of his horse and damaged his cart. It is also averred that respondents No. 2 and 3 are the owners of this bus, which was insured with respondent No. 4. The deceased was earning about R. 900/- per month. Claimants claimed Rs. 6300/- for the horse, Rs. 4000/- as costs of repairs of the rehri and remaining amount for the death of Gurmail Singh. Claimant Chhota Singh died during the pendency of the claim proceedings.
3. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 4 filed written statement admitting that the said vehicle was insured with it, but averred that their liability under the insurance policy is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. They denied other allegations also. Claimants examined six witnesses. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
4. The trial Court held that due to the rash and negligent driving of driver Tarsem Singh of Bus No. PNZ-102 at the relevant time he knocked down Gurmail Singh, who was driving his cart on the left side berm of the road. In this accident Gurmail Singh succumbed to the injuries his horse also died and his rehra was badly damaged. The tribunal also held that this bus was owned by respondent No. 3 and not by Respondent No. 2. On scanning the claimants’ evidence, the learned tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs. 450/- per month, must be spending 1/3rd of the income on himself. Thus, the dependency was determined at Rs. 300/-. These claimants were held to be dependants on the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased as well as of the claimants, a multiplier of 16 was adopted and thus, the claimants were held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 57,600/- for the death of Gurmail Singh. The learned tribunal also awarded the repair expenses of rehra. The tribunal directed that the awarded amount shall be recoverable from the respondents 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally with the condition that the liability of respondent No. 4 shall be limited to Rs. 50,000/-; interest was made recoverable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award if the amount of compensation is not paid within three months thereof.
5. Claimants in this appeal have assailed the findings about the dependency determined by the learned tribunal as well as about the cost of the deceased horse and the repair charges of the cart. The learned counsel contended that the claimants examined Sohan Singh AW-1, Nazar Singh PW-2 and Bachan Singh PW-3 to prove the monthly income of the deceased. Sohan Singh AW-1 testified on oath that the deceased was earning about Rs. 900/- 1000/- per month. He also stated that the claimants suffered a loss of Rs. 4000/- on account of damage of the rehra; Rs. 6300/-on account of death of the horse. Nazir Singh PW-2 testified that Gurmail Singh used to earn Rs. 40/- to Rs. 45/- per day. As per the statement of Bachana Singh PW-3, Gurmail Singh’s daily income was Rs. 40/-. The learned counsel submitted that this evidence remains unrebutted as respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttal. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 remained ex parte. Respondent No. 4 filed written statement, but has not specifically alleged that Gurmail Singh was earning less than Rs. 900/- per month though this allegation was denied by respondent No. 4 that he was earning Rs. 900/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that as claimants’ evidence was not rebutted by the respondents, the learned tribunal should have held that1 monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 900/-. He submitted that even a labourer gets about Rs. 40/- per day as wages.
6. The learned counsel also vehemently argued that no horse can be purchased for Rs. 2000/-. The learned tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2000/- for the death of the horse. Even a rehra could not be repaired out of this meager amount of Rs. 1000/-. Hence, he prayed that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal should be enhanced on all counts.
7. None appeared for respondents 1, 2, and 3, to assist the Court in deciding the appeal. Counsel for respondent No. 4 relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and Ors., (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 128 (S.C.) contended that the Insurance Company produced the insurance policy before the learned tribunal and the tribunal has rightly held that the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation amount is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. He also submitted that the Insurance Company has already deposited Rs. 50,000/- along with interest to be paid to the claimants. The learned counsel contended that even if the amount of compensation is enhanced, the Insurance Company cannot be made further liable to pay enhanced compensation to the claimants.
8. From the lower Court’s record, it is evident that the insurance policy was produced by respondent No.4. The learned tribunal has held that from this insurance policy, it is evident that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay more compensation than Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. Claimants’ learned counsel is not disputing this legal position. Hence, in my considered view, the learned tribunal has rightly held that the liability of respondent No. 4- Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in view of the insurance policy.
9. So far as enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, admittedly, there is no evidence in rebuttal. Sohan Singh-AW-1 is closely related to the claimants as Nasib Kaur-claimant is his maternal aunt. Sohan Singh has testified that Gurmail Singh was earning about Rs. 900/- / Rs. 1000/- per month. He has also stated that the age of Nasib Kaur is 45 years. Claimant Chhota Singh died at the age of 50/55 years; the other claimant Manga Singh is aged 14 years and remaining claimants are younger to him. Deceased Gurmail Singh was plying this rehra with the help of a horse and was doing the work of transporting bricks from one place to another. Nazar Singh PW-2 has also stated that Gurmail Singh used to earn Rs. 40/-to Rs. 45/- per day. His father Chhota Singh, being T.B. patient was unable to earn anything. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that Gurmail Singh was not earning more than Rs. 10/- per day. Bachan Singh PW-3 was co-worker with Gurmail Singh. Even according to Bachan Singh, Gurmail Singh used to earn about Rs. 40/- per day. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he is earning Rs. 40/- per day, but he has denied the suggestion that Gurmail Singh was not earning more than Rs. 10/- per day. This fact cannot be lost sight of that Chhota Singh, father of deceased Gurmail Singh, was a T.B. patient and was unable to earn anything. Gurmail Singh was supporting his whole of the family consisting of his parents and six minor brothers and sisters. He was aged about 21 years; was unmarried. Claimants are illiterate villagers. Gurmail Singh was also maintaining a horse for doing this work of transporting bricks from one place to another through his rehra. Maintenance of horse also requires some expenditure. There is no suggestion even that the claimants are indebted any other villager. Thus, if from his own earning, Gurmail Singh was able to maintain a family of nine persons with the horse, it is but common sense that he must be earning more than Rs. 450/- per month. He died on 8.11.1982. Considering the price index of that time, it can safely be concluded that Gurmail Singh must be earning around Rs. 600/- per month, if not more.
10. So far his personal expenses are concerned, the learned tribunal has deducte 1/3rd of his total earning for his personal expenses, but this fact is to be taken into consideration while deducting any amount for the personal expenses of the deceased that he was maintaining a family of nine human beings with a living horse. Under these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that he must be spending about Rs. 150/-per month on his personal expenses. Considering the financial and social status of the claimants, in my considered view, it can be held that he must be spending about Rs. 50/- on himself, being the sole earning member of the family.
11. Thus, in my considered view, the dependency should have been determined at Rs.550/- per month. Considering the age group of the deceased as well as of the claimants, the tribunal has rightly adopted a multiplier of 16. Thus, in my considered view, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 550 x 12 x 16 = Rs.1,05,600/- as compensation for untimely vehicular death of Gurmail Singh.
12. So far as repair cost of rehra and cost of horse are concerned, Sohan Singh AW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he handed over the receipts for the purchase of rehra and horse to his counsel, but those receipts were not produced by the claimants. Thus, they withheld the best documentary evidence to prove the cost of the horse as well as of the rehra. There is no evidence on record as to the age and physique of the horse. There is no evidence whether the animal was a horse or a pony. The horse/pony may be old and feeble and may not be costing too much while a healthy and young horse may be more costlier. Even this is neither pleaded nor proved as to since when this horse was with Gurmail Singh. The extent of damage caused to the rehra is also not proved. Thus, in my considered view, the learned tribunal has not fallen into any error in granting Rs. 1000/- as cost of repair of the rehra and Rs. 2000/- as cost of the deceased horse.
13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed; compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,08,600/-. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 4 has already paid Rs. 50,000/-along with awarded interest to the claimants. Hence, it is hereby ordered that this remaining amount of Rs. 58,600/- shall be paid by respondent No. 1 and 3 jointly and severally to the claimants. If this amount is not paid by them within three months] from the date of this judgment, they shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in this enhanced awarded amount i.e. Rs. 58,600/-.