Full Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.
1. These (FAO Nos. 26 and 27 of 1983) are dissatisfied claimants' appeals against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala.
2. The accident as such is not disputed and so goes the negligence part of it. Suffice it to say that two brothers, Iqbal Singh and Raghbir Singh, were riding a motor cycle on their way home, when at about 9.30 a.m. on February 5, 1979, were struck by a Punjab Roadways bus for no fault of theirs. The bus was driven rashly and negligently by Sarup Singh driver. Iqbal Singh died at the spot. Raghbir Singh, however, escaped death at that time but was badly injured. He received treatment in a private hospital for about 50 days and died thereafter. This gave rise to the claim petitions.
3. Raghbir Singh on the date of the accident was 45 years of age. His dependents were his widow and four minor children, aged 18 and below. He was said to be cultivating three acres of his own land and seven acres of his father and so to be deriving substantial income, which led the claimants to claim a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation. Besides, they claimed Rs. 6,000/- as expenses incurred by them on his treatment. For lack of positive evidence, the Tribunal awarded the claimants a sum of Rs. 2,500/-on account of expenses incurred on treatment. On the other hand, the Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2,500/-per year and given a multiplier of 13 the total dependency was assessed at Rs. 32,500/-. In this way, the total sum awarded to the dependents of Raghbir Singh was Rs. 35,000/- over which they were given 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of the application till date of payment.
4. Iqbal Singh on the date of his death was 35 years of age. He was B.A., B.Ed. His dependents happened to be his widow and three minor children, aged 8 and less They too claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation, which was based on the plea that the deceased was doing tuition work besides tilling his three acres of land and seven acres of his father, deriving substantial income. The Tribunal here did not believe the evidence regarding the tuition work, assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2,500/- per year and giving it a multiplier of 14 assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-. Over and above that, 6 per cent interest per annum was allowed from the date of the application till payment.
5. While Daljit Kaur, widow of Iqbal Singh, and her two minor sons and one minor daughter have filed FAO No. 26 of 1983, Smt. Charanjit Kaur, widow of Raghbir Singh, and her three minor sons and one minor daughter have filed FAO No. 27 of 1983.
6. The only question in the present appeal thus is-To what compensation the two respective sets of claimants are entitled At the outset, it may be mentioned that both the deceased so far as their agricultural activities were concerned were equally situated. The measure of land in their personal cultivation was equal and one can suppose that their agricultural pursuits too were of equal dimensions. Nothing has been urged before me so far as the added capacity of Iqbal Singh is concerned relating to his supposed tuition work. It otherwise does not sound reasonable that if tuition work was such a lucrative one as claimed fetching him Rs. 200/- per mensem for one hour teaching from two persons, why should he be pursuing the vocation of agriculture with his own hands. Such evidence is not difficult to get to support a claim of the kind. The Tribunal has chosen to discard the evidence and I see no reason to differ from that view.
7. Now to resume further with regard to the agricultural income of both the deceased, it seems that the Tribunal ignored the fact that inflation had started eating the value of the rupee in the end of eighties and the dependency of the claimants in no case could have been less than Rs. 300/- per mensem. This amount surely the deceased persons must have been contributing to the up-keep of the claimants. Thus, instead of Rs. 2,500/- per year, I would assess the dependencies in each respective case at Rs. 3,600/- per year. Besides this, I see no reason why the normal multiplier of 16 be not applied to both the cases despite the disparity in the ages of the deceased persons; more so when life expectancy has gone high and with the nutritional food which fortunately is now available in the country side, the peasants used to hard work, now live longer. Thus, applying the multiplier of 16, I would assess the damages on account of deprival of support to both sets of claimants, at Rs. 57,600/-. The dependents of Raghbir Singh would, besides, retain the sum of Rs. 2,500/- awarded to them by the Tribunal as expenses of treatment. Thus, these sums are awarded tot he claimants-appellants. Besides that, they are held entitled to 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment.
8. The appeals are thus allowed to the extent and in terms aforementioned, but with no costs in this Court.