JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. By this common judgment, I will be disposing of R.S.A. No. 2514 of 1991 filed by the defendants-appellants No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 21.9.1991, whereby their Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1988 titled Nirmal Singh etc. v. Jagir Kaur etc. was dismissed and Cross Objection No. 21-C of 1992 filed by plaintiff seeking further enhancement of compensation over and above Rs. 40,000/- granted by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 21.9.1991 while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 46 of 29.9.1988 titled Jagir Kaur v. Pal Singh and Ors.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Jagir Kaur wife of Wazir Singh instituted a suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 3 lacs against the defendants Pal Singh and others by way of damages suffered by her on account of murder of her son Surjit Singh at the hands of Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively. It was alleged in the plaint that Surjit Singh, son of the plaintiff, was working as a revenue Patwari and drawing Rs. 700/- per month as salary as on 29.5.1984, who was gunned down by defendant No. 1 at the instigation of defendant no.2 for which defendants No. 1 and 2 were tried in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.132 dated 29.5.1984 at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar under Sections 302/34 IPC. It was further alleged that deceased Surjit Singh was 24 years of age at the time of his murder. Though the longevity in the family of Surjit Singh is very high which goes up to 90 years and Surjit Singh would have lived into the age of 90 years had his life not been cut-short due to the murder. The plaintiff claimed herself dependent upon Surjit Singh and because of this loss, she claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs.
3. Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh, defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively contested the suit claiming that they had not murdered Surjit Singh and that Jagir Kaur plaintiff was not dependent upon her son but she was dependent upon her husband, who was alive.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the mother of deceased Surjit Singh? OPP
2. Whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 committed the murder of Surjit Singh deceased? OPP
3. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages? If so, to what extent? OPP
4. Whether the suit has not been properly filed? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of Hazara Singh? OPD
6. Relief.
5. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit against defendants No. I and 2 in view of finding that Surjit Singh was murdered by Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh in furtherance of their common intention on 29.5.1984. It was also found that Jagir Kaur plaintiff was the mother of Surjit Singh, who was revenue Patwari and getting Rs. 726.10 per month as salary and Jagir Kaur was dependent upon him The Trial Court assessed the dependency to the tune of Rs. 225/-per mensem and with a multiplier of 5, a sum of Rs. 13,500/- was awarded as damages.
6. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 26.8.1988, both plaintiff and defendants No. 1 & 2 filed appeals, namely, Civil Appeal No.46 of 1988 Jagir Kaur v. Pal Singh etc., and Civil Appeal No.51 of 1988 Nirmal Singh and Anr. v. Jagir Kaur and Ors., whereby plaintiff had assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the issue of damages whereas defendants No. 1 and 2 challenged the same on the ground of their liability and also assessment of compensation. The learned lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.9.1991 upheld the findings on issue No. 2 returned by the trial Court concluding that Surjit Singh was murdered by Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh in concert with each other on 29.5.1984. So far as issue No.3 is concerned, both the Courts below had found that plaintiff Jagir Kaur is the wife of Wazir Singh who was alive and has a legal liability to maintain her and she was not totally dependent upon her son Surjit Singh, however, it was opined that she was living with her son Surjit Singh as well and in the Indian Society, sons do maintain their parents. In this view of the matter, the first Appellate Court found that out of Rs. 726.10 which was the salary of deceased Surjit Singh, he must have been sparing Rs. 350/- for his mother, who was 62 years of age at the time of his murder and is still alive.
7. Therefore, it was opined that average life span is not less than 70 years as such multiplier of 10 was applied. The first Appellate Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realisation.
8. Counsel for the appellant has argued that since Jagir Kaur was not totally dependent upon her son Surjit Singh, therefore, no compensation should have been allowed towards loss of dependency and since she was already 62 years of age, multiplier of 10 has been wrongly applied.
9. Neither any question of law has been framed by the counsel for the appellants nor does it arise in this appeal as findings recorded by the Courts below are findings of fact in so far as the findings on issue No. 1 is concerned as to whether the mother of plaintiff Surjit Singh was totally dependent upon him or finding on issue No.2 is as to whether Surjit Singh was murdered by defendant No. 1 and 2. Pal Singh has already been convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Court of Sh. M.L. Merchea, Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur vide his order dated 9.1.1985 and has been ordered to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Order Ex. P 10 is on record. Issue No.3 pertains to plaintiffs entitlement for damages and extent thereof. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that though Jagir Kaur was not solely dependent upon Surjit Singh deceased but as a son he was, maintaining his mother by contributing half of his salary. In view of the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, the appeal filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 is held to be without any merit and is dismissed as such.
10. Reverting to the Cross Objections filed by the plaintiff-Objector, counsel for the Objector argued that the Courts below have erred in adopting the multiplier. He has submitted that it has come on record that there is trend of longevity in the family of Surjit Singh which goes upto 90 years. Jagir Kaur herself is still alive and is of the age of 81 years, therefore, consideration of 70 years as the expectancy of life was wrong and as per schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, in case of death of a person between 20-25 years, a multiplier of 17 is allowed which should also be given in the present case.
11. I find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-Objector. There is no doubt that Jagir Kaur is still alive and is of 81 years of age. There is established longevity in the family. In such circumstances, the Courts below should have applied a multiplier of 17 instead of 10 in view of Schedule appended to with the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. In view of what has been recorded above, in my opinion, 17 should be the suitable multiplier so far as Jagir Kaur is concerned and with that multiplier, the amount of damages with Rs. 350/- per month as dependency comes to Rs. 71,400/- meaning thereby a sum of Rs. 31,400/- over and above the amount awarded by the first Appellate Court to which Smt. Jagir Kaur plaintiff shall be entitled with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.
13. No other point has been argued.
14. Thus, R.S.A. No. 2514 of 1991 Pal Singh and Anr. v. Jagir Kaur, is dismissed. Cross Objection No. 21-C of 1992 in R.S.A. No. 2514 of 1991 is allowed and damages payable to Smt. Jagir Kaur is further enhanced to Rs. 31,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. The parties are left to bear their own costs.