Judgment:
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimants arising out of award of the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar in M.A.C.T. case No. 41 of 1988 decided on 2.3.1990. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal determined the dependency at Rs. 225/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 44,000/- (round off), adding to this Rs. 2000/- on account of expenses for performance of last rites, a total amount of Rs. 46,000/- was awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further ordered that the amount of compensation is to be shared equally between father, mother and minor brothers of deceased Jaspal Singh.
2. Briefly the facts are that on 7.5.1988 at about 11.45 A.M. deceased Jaspal Singh was going towards Ludhiana from Goraya on a motor cycle. Near Radio Station, Goraya, truck bearing registration No. PAT-4775 being driven by Parkash Chand struck against Jaspal Singh, resulting in his death.
3. In reply filed the respondents alleged that the accident in fact, took place because of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle driven by deceased Jaspal Singh. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:
1) Whether the accident in question causing the death of Jaspal Singh had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PAT-4775 by Parkash Chand respondent No. 1? OPP
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP
3) Relief.
4. Issue regarding rash and negligent driving was decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants. The primary contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is that deceased Jaspal Singh was a young unmarried boy of 26 years, who was running a factory of spare parts installed about 2 and 3 months prior to his death and was contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family for expenses. But in spite of that the Tribunal has made an assessment at a meager amount of Rs. 225/- per month.
5. Counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of Darshan Kaur, PW 2 mother of deceased Jaspal Singh to advance his arguments about income of deceased Jaspal Singh. In the statement, Darshan Kaur stated that deceased Jaspal Singh had purchased land. He got electric connection installed from Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). Photocopy of the sale deed dated 23.9.1986 regarding purchase of property by Jaspal Singh is also on record as Ex. A5. The receipt for payment of electricity bills were also placed on record as Exs. A1 to A4. A perusal of the documents referred to in her statement reveals that Rs. 2,400/- were deposited by deceased Jaspal Singh with PSEB as special charges on 23.76.1987 and Rs. 1,476/- on the same date as service charges. Further, there are two energy bills also on records one dated 31.3.1988, Ex. A3 in the name of deceased Jaspal Singh and another bill which was deposited on 18.7.1988, Ex. A4.
6. Relying upon these documents, the contention of the counsel for the appellants is that these documents clearly show that deceased Jaspal Singh was not sitting idle, rather was engaged in business. The energy bills show that some power was being consumed where deceased Jaspal Singh had got an electric connection released for the purpose of business. Merely because there is no evidence on record regarding sale and purchase of material by deceased Jaspal Singh, the evidence referred to earlier cannot be brushed aside in its entirety, rather the same has to be given due weightage. Considering the statement of PW-2, mother of deceased Jaspal Singh and also the evidence on record, as referred to above, I am of the view that the estimation of dependency of merely Rs. 225/- per month by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the facts of the case and the evidence on record. While assessing the dependency at Rs. 225/- per month, the Tribunal has totally brushed aside the evidence on record.
7. From the evidence on record and the statement of witnesses, I am of the view that deceased Jaspal Singh doing the business and his contribution to the family should be assessed at least Rs. 500/- per month i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per annum.
8. However, the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 16 to the dependency, assessed Rs. 44,000/- as compensation. The fact that deceased Jaspal Singh was a young unmarried person of 26 years, so multiplier should have been applied, keeping in view the age of the parents. Father of the deceased Jaspal Singh being about 53 years on the date of accident, in my opinion multiplier applies in the present case deserves to be reduced to 12 from 16.
9. Consequently, the amount of compensation would be recalculated at Rs. 6000 x 12 = 72,000/-. To this a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of performance of last rites of deceased, as awarded by the Tribunal, is added making it a total of Rs. 75,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall be payable only to the parents of deceased Jaspal Singh in equal shares, the claimants as mentioned above will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition i.e. 15.6.1988 till payment.
10. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeal is accepted accordingly.