JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. By this judgment two appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 267 and 266 of 1992) are being decided.
2. Appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 13.8.1991 wherein it is held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Gamdoor Singh of bus No. PBL-306 of the Punjab Roadways. It is further held that in this accident parents of claimants Parminder Singh, Sukhvinder Kaur, Inderjit Kaur and Manjit Kaur (Claim Petition No. 37 of 1989) died. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,99,200/- to the three claimants. Manjit Kaur claimant No. 4 is not entitled to get any compensation as she is a married daughter. In this accident, Tejinder Singh sustained multiple injuries. He suffered 40 per cent disability. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,35,000/- to this claimant. The appellant has assailed the findings given in these two claim cases.
3. Factual matric of the case is that on 13.2.1989 deceased Harbhajan Singh along with his wife Gurbachan Kaur, Sovinder Singh, Hardeep Kaur and Tejinder Singh were travelling in a Maruti Van No. PCJ-5351 which was being driven by Sovinder Singh, petitioners averred that this Maruti Van was being driven on the left side of the road. When it reached near village Bharatgarh Near Bansal Stone Crusher at 12.50 noon a bus No. PBL 306 belonging to Punjab Roadways came from wrong side of the road and dashed against the front portion of the Maruti Van. All the occupants of the Van sustained multiple injuries. Sovinder Singh, Hardeep Kaur, Harbhajan Singh and Gurbachan Singh succumbed to the injuries were brought to the hospital. Tejinder Singh claimant was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. Petitioners specifically pleaded that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus, who is respondent Gamdoor Singh. In the alternative, it was also contended that if negligence of the Maruti Van’s driver is also proved, the claimants are entitled to compensation as then it would become a case of contributory negligence. In Claim Petition No. 37 of 1989 Parminder Singh son, Sukhvinder Kaur, Inderjit Kaur and Manjit Kaur daughters of deceased Harbhajan Singh claimed compensation. In Claim Petition No. 40 of 1989 Tejinder Singh claimed compensation on account of his injuries sustained by him in this accident. He pleaded that he was hospitalised for two months. During this period, he could not earn anything. He has already undergone three operations; two more are yet to be conducted. He can walk with the help of a walker. He has become a handicapped person. He has spent Rs. one lac on his treatment, transportation and special diet. He had undergone pain and suffering. There is shortening of his right leg by one inch. His disability is assessed at 40 per cent.
4. Respondents-appellant contested all the claim petitions and denied that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. It was pleaded that the accident took place, due to rash and negligent driving of Sovinder Singh, driver of Maruti Van. Front tyre of Maruti Van had bursted and due to that reason, the Van went out of control and rammed into the bus. It is also alleged that one of the injured made such statement in Civil Hospital, Ropar. Hence, this accident did not take place because of rash and negligent driving of bus driver. The Insurance Company of Maruti Van also contested the claim petitions. It averred that the driver of Maruti Van was not negligent, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
5. Vide order dated 23.10.1989 all five claim.petitions.were consolidated with Claim Petition No. 37 of 1989, only three issues were framed. First issue was whether this accident wherein Harbhajan Singh, Hardeep Kaur and Sovinder Singh died and Tejinder Singh sustained injuries occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid bus No. PBL-306 or Maruti Van No. PCJ 5351? The second issue was; To what compensation, the claimants are entitled and third was about Relief. Parties adduced evidence.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that this accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Gamdoor Singh respondent. While deciding issue No. 2 with regard to claim petition No. 37 of 1989, the Tribunal held that Harbhajan Singh was working as S.D.O. and was getting Rs. 3900/-. His date of birth was 17.10.1938. Thus, he was aged 51 years when he died in this accident. The Tribunal also considered that after his retirement, he would have worked as a contractor as well. Deducting l/3rd on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was determined at Rs. 2600/- per month. Multiplier of 16 was applied. Rs. 4800/- were allowed as expenses incurred on the last rites of the parents of these claimants. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,99,200/- as compensation to the claimants minus Manjit Kaur, who is a married daughter.
7. In claim Petition No. 40 of 1989; the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,35,000/- to injured Tejinder Singh. The learned Tribunal considered that Tejinder Singh sustained fracture of both legs, both knee caps, received injuries on his face and chest also. He was admitted in hospital for two months. As there was strike in P.G.I., he went to Ludhiana in a Van. For 7/8 months his leg remained under plaster. He had undergone three operations and two more are yet to be conducted. A steel plate is fixed in his thigh. He cannot squat on the ground and cannot bend his knee. He can walk with the help of a walker. He was earning Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2000/- per month. Now he is a handicapped person. His disability is assessed by the doctor to the extent of 40 per cent. There is shortening of right leg by one inch. The Tribunal held that he has spent Rs. one lac on his treatment, transportation charges and special diet etc. At the time of accident, his age was 35 years. For two and half years, he could not earn anything. The Tribunal awarded compensation as under:- ‘N
1. 40% permanent disability Rs. 25,000/-
2. for special diet Rs. 3,000/- 3. for medicine Rs. 30,000/- 4. for pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- 5. for transportation charges Rs. 10,000/- 6. Services rendered by the attendants and family members. Rs. 7,000/- 7. for future operation Rs. 10,000/- 8. Loss of income for 2-1/2 years Rs. 45,000/- 9. Pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs. 300/- per month multiplied by 18 Rs. 64,800/- Thus, a total claim compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- is awarded. 8. The appellant has assailed the findings on both the issues given by the learned Claims Tribunal.
9. Respondents’ learned counsel relying on Irma Siddigui and Anr. v. State of U.P, 1987(2) A.C.J. 645 State of Punjab v. Mehar Devi and Ors., 1990(1) A.C.J. 274 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., (1986-2)90 P.L.R. 106 and Haryana State through Secretary Transport Chandigarh and Anr. v. Sudesh Raizada and Ors., (1990-2)98 PLR 86 raised a preliminary objection that by this Single award 5 claim petitions were decided as they were consolidated, the State-appellant has preferred appeals only against the award given with regard to two claim petitions. Since the appellant has not filed appeal against the other awards, the finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the appellant has become final. Therefore, finding on issue No. 1 now cannot be assailed by the appellant.
10. Preliminary objection is tenable since the appellant has not preferred any appeal against the other claim petitions which are also decided by the impugned award. The finding given with regard to issue No. 1 has become final and the appellant cannot challenge it now in these two appeals. Hence, I find that the finding given with regard to issue No. 1 is not assailable in these appeals.
11. So far as Claim Petition No. 37 of 1989 is concerned, the appellant’s learned counsel relying on Sunita Rani and Ors. v. Hardev Singh, (1995-2) 110 P.L.R. 105, Shero Devi and Ors. v. Vijay Kumqr, 1996(1) ACC 100 and Kaushal Pal Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Singh and Ors., (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 676 contended that in this case the age of deceased Harbhajan Singh, S.D.O. was 51 at the time of this accident. The learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 16, which according to the appellant’s counsel is on the higher side. He drew my attention to all the aforesaid judgments.
12. In Sunita Rani’s case (supra), the deceased was aged 31 years and multiplier of 13 was adopted. In Shero Devi’s case (supra), the deceased was aged 50 years multiplier of 9 was only adopted. In Kaushal Pal Singh’s case (supra) the deceased was aged 34 and multiplier of 15 was adopted.
13. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., (1994-2) 107 P.L.R.l (S.C.), facts of the case were that the deceased was aged 39 years. His monthly income was 1032/- per month. He was having a stable job. The Apex Court held that “while the choice of the multiplier is to be determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future.” The Apex Court took into consideration the prospects of advancement of the deceased in future career and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. The dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs. 1400/- per month and. adopting a multiplier of 12 only, Rs. 20,4000/- was awarded on this count. Rs. 15, 000/- for loss of consortium and loss of the estate each were also awarded, but in all a sum of Rs. 22,500/- were awarded as compensation.
14. Considering it from this point of view, in my considered opinion also, the Claims Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 16, which is on the higher side. In my considered view, since the age of the deceased was 51 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 12 would have been appropriate multiplier. The claimant’s mother has also died. One daughter is already married. Age of claimant Parminder Singh was 27 years when the petition was filed. Age group of Sukhwinder Kaur and Inderjit Kaur is not mentioned in the petition itself. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 4800/- as funeral expenses. It does not call for any interference. Thus, according to me, these respondents are entitled to get Rs. 3,73,400/- on account of the death of their father Harbhajan Singh plus Rs. 4800/- in all Rs. 3,78,200/- from the respondent appellant. The appellant has already deposited Rs. 3 lacs to be paid to the claimant-respondents. Thus, F.A.O. No. 267 of 1992 is partly allowed. It is ordered that the appellant shall pay Rs. 3,85,200/- to the claimant-respondents, namely, Parminder Singh, Sukhvinder Kaur and Inderjit Kaur. The amount of Rs. 3 lacs deposited in the Court of the Claims Tribunal, Ropar be paid to the claimants and the appellant should pay the remaining amount of Rs. 85,200/- to the said Claimant-respondents within three months from the date of this order. This F.A.O. No. 267 for 1992 is disposed of accordingly.
15. So far as F.A.O. No. 266 of 1992 is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,35,000/- to claimant Tejinder Singh on all the various Heads enumerated above. Appellant’s learned counsel contended that even in this case the learned Tribunal has assessed loss of future earning at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and applying a multiplier of 18, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 64,800/- on this count to the claimant. The award is also assailed so far as the amount awarded on the Head of treatment is concerned.
16. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- due to 40 per cent permanent disability, Rs. 3000/- for special diet, Rs. 30,000/- for medicines purchased by him, Rs. 40,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation etc., Rs. 7000/- for services rendered by the attendant and family members, Rs. 10,000/- for future operation, Rs. 45,000/- on account of loss of income for a period of 2-1/2 years for which he remained without any work. Total compensation awarded on these Heads comes to Rs. 1,70,000/- which does not call for any interference.
17. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment that he had to take, period during which he was without any work, the amount he incurred on his treatment and also taking into consideration the fact that in future also he has to undergo one operation, the only point for consideration is whether multiplier of 18 has been properly applied to determine the future loss of income. No doubt, the claimant respondent has suffered 40 per cent disability in his leg. He cannot squat on the ground and cannot cross his legs, but by profession, he is a shopkeeper. The Tribunal has taken into consideration his monthly income as Rs. 1500/-. because of 40 per cent disability, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that in future also, he will suffer pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs. 300/- per month. On the basis of the above facts, the Tribunal has determined future loss at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. But the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 18, which is definitely on the higher side. Taking into consideration the ratio of all the judgments referred to above, in my considered view, in this case also multiplier of 12 should have appropriate multiplier.
18. Thus, in my considered view the finding given by the Claims Tribunal with regard to loss of future earning is not sustainable so far as multiplier is concerned. I Adopting a multiplier of 12 I find that claimant-respondent is entitled to get Rs. 43,200/- on this count. Thus, in my considered view, claimant-respondent is entitled f to get Rs. 2,12,200/- as compensation from the appellant.
19. Accordingly, Appeal No. 266 is also partly allowed, it is held that the claimant-respondent Tejinder Singh is entitled to recover Rs. 2,13,200/- as compensation from the appellant. Out of this amount, the appellant has already deposited Rs. one lac before the Claims Tribunal, Ropar, which be now disbursed to the claimant-respondent. Appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1,13,200/- in the Court of Claims Tribunal, Ropar with in two months from the date of receipt of this order. The order regarding payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is maintained subject to the modifications made above.
