Judgment:
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by Shiv Ditta Mai and Smt. Pushpa Rani W/o Shiv Ditta Mal, hereinafter described as 'the appellants' directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dated 18.12.1985. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 35,400/- to the appellants against the respondents payable jointly and severally. They were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 19.12.1983 till realisation.
2. The relevant facts alleged are that the appellants in the claim petition had asserted that they are parents of deceased Rajesh Malhotra who died on 26.6.1981 at 11.30 p.m. at Shahbad-Pipii Road as a result of accident between Haryana Roadways Bus No. HRX 1631 and trolley truck No. TMU 4379. The bus was proceeding from Chandigarh to Charkhi Dadri. The deceased was travelling in the bus. The trolley tractor was approaching from the opposite direction. The deceased was about 18 years of age and working as a Salesman at the shop of a cloth merchant and was earning Rs. 400/- per month. Besides, he was earning Rs. 200/- per month from supply of leather materials. It was asserted that the trolley truck was loaded with iron bars. Both the vehicles were being driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. The rear right side of the bus struck against the iron bars towards the rear of the truck and the window panes of the bus smashed. Rajesh Malhotra died as a result of the injuries received.
3. The petition as such was contested by the New India Assurance Company Limited as well as the State of Haryana. The State of Haryana in the written statement admitted the accident in question but denied the assertions of the appellants in the claim petition. It was their defence that a truck trolley came from Pipli side loaded with assessories of iron for Thermal Plant at Ropar. The iron bars loaded on the truck trolley were bulging out. The driver of the bus used dipper and took his bus to kacha portion of the road. However, the truck driver swerved the truck trailer towards the bus as a result of which a passenger sitting on seat No. 44 who had kept his head outside the bus received the injuries and died. In this process, the blame was put on the driver of the truck trailer for rash and negligent driving.
4. The New India Assurance Company Limited in a separate written statement denied its liability to pay the compensation. It was denied that there was any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck trailer/truck trolley.
5. Issues were framed and the learned Tribunal after recording of evidence held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus as well as truck trolley referred to above. With respect to the compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was no less than Rs. 574/-per month. However, so far as dependency of the appellants is concerned, the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the deceased in the coming years would have married and the dependency of the appellants would not have been more than Rs. 1,900/- to Rs. 2,000/- per annum. The compensation was awarded taking the dependency at Rs. 1,900/- per year with multiplier of 16. Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for the purpose of last rites.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.
7. In this Court, the short question agitated has been as to if the compensation awarded is adequate There was no other dispute which requires a probing by this Court.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the dependency had been calculated at the lower side and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation.
9. Keeping in view the evidence on the record, there was little controversy raised about the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 575/- per month.
10. It is true that the deceased was a bachelor and only 18 years of age. It can also not be denied that it was expected that after few years he would have married and necessarily his wife and children, if any, would also be maintained by him. But in this regard certain amount of conjectures do creep in and are justified. Even while calculating the dependency of the parents, some reasonable amount has to be taken note of. In that view of the matter, the dependency of the parents could not be less than Rs. 250/- per month or Rs. 3,000/- per annum with no dispute about the multiplier, it must be held that the appellants were entitled to compensation at Rs. 48,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- for funeral rites i.e. in all Rs. 53,000/-.
11. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 53,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realisation. However, the interest shall be calculated only on the balance amount if the earlier awarded amount has already been paid.