V.K. Bali, J.
1. Appellant Mohinder Kaur widow of deceased Piara Singh and three sons and two daughters of appellant Mohinder Kaur lament only inadequate compensation granted to them on account of death of their sole bread winner Piara Singh who died in an accident that took place on 4th May, 1978, when the deceased was going on scooter alongwith Gurbachan Singh Bajawa aged 40 years. They both were knocked down by truck bearing No, DHG-5063. Widow and children of both the persons who died i.e. Piara Singh and Gurbachan Singh filed two separate claim applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur. Whereas heirs of Gurbachan Singh were awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs. 60,000/-, the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs.38,800/-. The insurance Company alone filed two appeals. The appellants as also Sukhdeep Kaur widow and her children filed Cross-objections in both the appeals. These appeals and Cross-objections came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 12th July, 1984. Whereas both the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company were dismissed, cross-objections in both the cases were allowed. However, compensation to Sukhdeep Kaur and her children was enhanced to Rs.1,44,000/- and in the case of the appellants it is only interest of 12 per cent per annum which was awarded keeping, however, the amount of compensation of
Rs. 38,800/- intact. Only one appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge. Even through in the grounds of appeal the prayer is for enhancing the compensation awarded to Sukhdeep Kaur and her children only one appeal by Mohinder Kaur and her children has been filed. After perusing the records of the case, we are of the considered view that there is scope for enhancement of the compensation in the case relating to Piara Singh deceased. The Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties came to a firm finding that Piara Singh owned 7-1/2 acres of land in village Jamalpur. Mohinder Kaur deposed before the Tribunal that Piara Singh deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per acre every six months from the land owned by him and that being so, the monthly deprivation of income comes to
Rs. 2,500/-. Two months after the death of Piara Singh, she engaged one Jabru at Rs.300/- per month besides providing meals and clothing. Jabru was not capable of managing the land with the same efficiency as the deceased and, therefore, the income was reduced to one half of what it used to be earlier. Piara Singh was 35 years of age at the time of his death and left behind his widow, her mother-in-law Partap Kaur, who was dependent upon him and Narinder Singh, Sarvjit Singh and Sukhvinder Singh, his son’s and Paramjit Kaur and Mahinder Kaur, his daughters. The children at the time of death of Piara Singh were aged 18, 16, 14, 12 and 9 years respectively. Widow had the burden of marrying her two daughters. The Tribunal on the evidence, referred to above, held that the loss to his dependents was to the tune of Rs. 540/- per month and by giving multiplier of six, amount of Rs. 38,800/- was awarded as compensation. It requires to be mentioned here that there was no evidence in rebuttal at all nor the Insurance Company was able to make any dent in the evidence that has been referred to above. It is common understanding that the interest that an owner has and the zeal with which he works to put the land to maximum use cannot be expected from his servants. In the very nature of things, the income that Piara Singh was deriving from the land must have considerably gone down. Even if the evidence of widow of Piara Singh was not accepted in totality that Piara Singh was contributing Rs. 2,500/- in house-hold, it can well be said that on account of his death, the income of the land ought to have been reduced to an extent of Rs. 1,000/- per month, if not more. There was, thus, a clear loss of Rs. 1,000/- inclusive of the labour charges that had to be given to Jabru or others for cultivating the land and that should have been the minimum assessment of loss per month to the family of the deceased. As referred to above, Piara Singh was 35 years only and multiplier of six, in our considered view, was too inadequate. The multiplier of 20, considering the totality of the facts and Circumstances of the case, inclusive of the fact that a young widow, an aged mother-in-law and five children are there to fend for themselves, would be appropriate in this case. Working thus, the loss to the family comes to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per year, and by multiplier of 20, the claimants-appellants deserve compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-.
2. The present appeal is, thus, allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the Single Judge of this Court is modified by holding that appellants shall be entitled to
Rs. 2,40,000/- with 12% interest from the date of claim application was filed before the Tribunal. It shall be joint and several responsibility of the respondents to pay compensation to the appellants.
3. This appeal, is, thus, allowed in the matter indicated above but there shall be no order as to costs.