JUDGMENT
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. This is Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment passed by learned single Judge of this Court dated 21-7-1989 in FAO No. 1175 of 1985 titled Sunder Mohan Mathur-appellant v. Ajit Singh, whereby he
ordered the award of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to Shri Sunder Mohan Mathur on account of the death of his son Nagesh Mathur aged 26 years in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 4-4-1983 at 3.30 P. M. at the turning near Badkhal Lake on Delhi-Gurgaon road.
2. Facts of the case are as follows :–Nagesh Mathur was employed with M/s. Eicher Goodearth Limited., 120 SIAN’ Second Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi as Technical Assistant. His duty was to supervise, check and inspect the performance of tractor manufactured by respondent No. 2 at Faridabad on the instructions of his employer and in the discharge of his duties, on 4-4-1983 he was deputed to check the performance of tractor No. HRC-170-C being driven by Ajit Singh driver of that tractor employed by respondent No. 2. This driver was driving the said tractor with trolley loaded with earth. Its performance was to be checked by Nagesh Mathur in the Capacity of Technical Assistant. He was sitting on the trolley of the tractor and watching its performance at about 3.30 p.m. on 4-4-1983 when tractor was being driven by Ajit Singh as instructed by the employer (respondent No. 2). Ajit Singh Was driving the tractor recklessly, negligently and rashly at uncontrollable speed without taking any precautions. Due to rash and negligent driving, the driver lost control and the tractor and trolley over-turned when the tractor took turn near turning of Badkhal Lake at Gurgaon-Delhi road. Nagesh Mathur fell from the tractor trolley towards the right side of the road and sustained injuries. His body got buried in the piles of earth. He died due to suffocation because of fall of earth on him. He was born in November 1958. He passed intermediate (Science) in the year 1977 from Govt. Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow. After Inter (Science) he qualified three years in Automobiles Engineering in the year 1980 from Govt. Polytechnic, Lucknow. He had been working and earning right since the year 1980 after obtaining diploma certificate. He also worked in Western India Industries, 17, Nav Yug Market, Ghaziabad as Technical Assistant on monthly salary of Rs. 500/-. He was thereafter selected by respondent No. 2 at a salary of Rs. 750/- per month. He was given rise of Rs. 250/- on his previous salary on account of his past experience. Had his life not been cut short, he would have served his family for a long time. He was unmarried. He was the
sole bread-winner of the family including his father. Besides his father, his sister was also dependent upon him. Nagesh Mathur’s sister Kumari Dheera Mathur was of marriageable age. He was parting Rs. 500/- to the claimant. He would have gone upto the rank of General Manager of the company in the technical side had he remained alive. Apart from that he was deprived of the love and affection of his son. Loss of his son is mental agony to him. On these allegations, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act from both the respondents.
3. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim application. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :–
” 1. Whether Nagesh Mathur died due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HRC 107 by respondent No. 1, the employee of respondent No. 2?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation as the legal representatives of the deceased, If so to what amount ?
3. Relief.”
5. Vide order dated 9-9-1985, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short ‘MACT), Faridabad awarded Rs. 14,300/- to Shri Sunder Mohan Mathur on account of the untimely demise of his son Nagesh Mathur in this motor vehicle accident attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor by Ajit Singh, driver during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2.
6. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him, Sunder Mohan Mathur came up in appeal to this court namely FAO No. 1175 of 1985.
7. Learned single Judge of this Court awarded Rs. 50,000/-. He ordered that out of this amount of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- was liable to be deducted, which had been paid to him by the employer as ex-gratia payment.
8. Still not satisfied with the amount awarded to Sunder Mohan Mathur as compensation, he has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal namely LPA No. 1729 of 1989 to this court.
9. During the course of this appeal, Sunder Mohan Mathur died on 17-8-1993. He has survived
by his son Rakesh Mathur and daughter Dheera Mathur. Rakesh Mathur and Dheera Mathur were brought on record as the legal representatives/ heirs/dependents of Nagesh Mathur.
10. In our opinion, learned single Judge has gone completely off the track market by the principles which govern the award of compensation in a motor vehicle case.
11. Rs. 10,000/- was given by the employer to Shri Sunder Mohan Mathur by way of ex-gratia payment which was admissible to him on account of the loss of his son in motor vehicle accident in view of the provisions of workman Compensation Act. Nagesh Mathur war earning Rs. 750/- per month. He was 26 years old. He was maintaining his unmarried sister Kumari Dheera Mathur and his father aged 55 years. Nagesh Mathur was not addicted to smoking, liquor, etc. Sunder Mohan Mathur’s mother aged 80 years was alive. His father died at the age of 75 years. In this family, thus, longevity was quite high. Sunder Mohan Mathur could be presumed to have remained alive for another 15 years. In Indian setting sons do contribute towards the marriages of their sisters. If not more, he must have been contributing towards his father’s & sister’s maintenance and marriage to the tune of Rs. 400-450/- per mensem. Going by this estimate, he would have contributed Rs. 75,000/- towards his father’s and sister’s maintenance and sister’s marriage over the years. We are quite alive to this reality of life that Nagesh Mathur was 26 years old and in course of 2-4 years, he would have married and raised his own family. After marriage and raising his own family, his capacity to contribute towards his father would have declined. At the same time, his capacity to earn would also have registered an increase due to gain in experience. Off setting this increase and corresponding distribution of responsibility towards his father and his own family, the net result would have been his contribution towards his father to the tune of 400-450/- per mensem. In our social set-up even if a sister is married, a brother has to contribute towards her on occasion of birth of some child to her or the marriage of her child or the christening ceremony of her child or the like. In our opinion, Sunder Mohan Mathur should have been awarded, if not more, atleast Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for
the untimely demise of his son Nagesh Mathur at a young age of 26 years. On this amount of compensation, we award 12 per cent per annum interest payable with effect from the date of claim application till realisation. Amount of compensation shall be payable by both the respondents, whose liability shall be joint and several. Out of this amount of compensation, we do not order deduction of Rs. 10,000/- which had been unjustly ordered by the learned single Judge. We award Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the appellant. Amount of compensation shall be shared equally by Rakesh and Dheera.
12. So, this appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs..40,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- with interest as directed above.