JUDGMENT
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimant being the mother of Sukhwinder Singh deceased, who was run over and killed by the truck PUE–7991 near the petrol pump at Nangal Chowk, Ropar. This happened on September, 27, 1983. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. A sum of Rs. 16,800/–was awarded as compensation to the mother-Surjit Kaur.
2. No exception can be taken to the finding that the accident had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. It is pertinent to note that the accident stands admitted by the respondents, though, of course, there was a denial of negligence by them.
3. According to the claimants, Sukhwinder Singh was on his way to the petrol pump when the truck driven by respondent-Darshan Singh suddenly turned towards petrol pump and ran him over. The respondents took the plea that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself.
4. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 3–Dharam Singh and PW 4 Mobinder Singh, who both deposed that the truck came on to the wrong side of the chowk and ran over the deceased. Further, it was their testimony that the truck, at the time of the accident, was being driven by respondent-Darshan Singh. This respondent, namely, Darshan Singh deposed that he did not possess the driving licence and in fact never had a driving licence. R.W. 1-Mohinder Singh, the owner of the truck and the father of the other respondent-Darshan Singh cameforth to depose that he had parked the truck at the petrol pump and when he turned it towards the left, a boy struck against the right rear wheel of this truck and he did not know from which side he had come. In other words, he sought to substitute himself as the driver of the truck in place of his son-Darshan Singh, who did not possess a driving licence.
5. A plea had also been raised by the respondents that the matter had been compromised with the relations of the deceased. It is to be noted that the claimant, that is, mother of the deceased was, even on the respondents’ own showing, not a party to any such compromise and what is more, none of the relatives, who are said to have been a party to this compromise, have been produced to support it. No such compromise can thus absolve the respondents from blame for this accident.
6. As mentioned earlier, the accident has been admitted by the respondents, but they sought to fasten the blame for it upon the deceased himself by saying that it was caused due to his fault. The respondents have, however, not cared to say what this fault of the deceased was. The testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, PW 3-Dharam Singh and PW 4 Mohinder Singh is clear and straight-forward and leaves no manner of doubt that it was the negligent driving of the bus that caused the accident. Both these witnesses are consistent in deposing that the bus was being driven by Darshan Singh. This Darshan Singh has admitted that he did not possess the driving licence. No suggestion was made to either of them that the truck was in fact not being driven by Darshan Singh but by his father Mohinder Singh.
7. No occasion is thus provided here for up-setting the finding of negligence recorded against the truck-driver, Darshan Singh.
8. As regard the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant -Surjit Kaur, the mother of the deceased, the evidence shows that she was wholly dependant upon the deceased-son, Sukhwinder Singh who was 20 years of age at the time of his death. The claimant was then 47 years of age. According to PW 2-Surinder Kumar, the deceased Sukhwinder Singh had been working with him as a helper at a salary of Rs. 500/- per month. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that he was not regularly employed with him, but he used to engage him when he had rush of work and at other times the deceased also worked as an agricultural labourer. It is thus on this basis that the loss to the mother has to be computed.
9. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was unmarried and only 20 years of age at the time of his death, it is reasonable to assume that had he lived, he would have got married and raised a family and would have than had to meet the expenses of the family too besides looking after his mother. Taking therefore, an over-all view of the circumstances of the deceased and the claimant, in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR. 1. It would be fair and just to assess the loss to the claimant at Rs. 2,500/- per annum with a multiplier of ’16’. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimant would work out to Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only). The compensation payable to the claimant is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- which she shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.
10. Respondents 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded. This appeal is consequently hereby accepted to this extent while the cross-objections filed by the respondents are dismissed. The claimant shall be entitled to her costs both in the appeal and the cross- objections. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- (One set only).