Sarojnei Saksena, J.@mdashAmar Nath appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated October 30, 1984, given by Shri R.S. Sharma,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar, wherein a compensation of Rs. 19,200/- has been granted to the claimant for the accidental death of his
son Ranjit Singh.
2. In a nutshell, the claimant''s case was that on January 30, 1984 at about 3.00 P.M. deceased Ranjit Singh was travelling from Ropar to his
village in bus No. PUB-7833 driven by Thakur Singh respondent No. 1 and owned by respondents 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 was driving the
bus rashly and negligently. When the bus reached near the bridge of Bhakra-Sirsa canal due to excessive speed, respondent No. 1 lost control
over the bus and it fell into the canal, thereby causing death of about 70 passengers. Claimant''s son Ranjit Singh was one of them. Head Constable
Gurmit Singh and Constable Gian Singh were the eye-witnesses of this accident. Gurmit Singh lodged the report and a criminal case was registered
thereupon. At the time of accident Ranjit Singh was aged about 18 years and he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from dairy farming as well as
by working as a carpenter. Claimant''s age is 65 years. He is the only legal heir of Ranjit Singh, who was having brilliant prospects in life. Hence he
claimed Rs.2 lacs as compensation.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed a separate written statement, while respondents 2 and 3 filed a joint written reply, raising legal objections to the effect
that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it is not maintainable. Even the cause of accident and the liability ensuing therefrom
are denied.
4. The claims Tribunal arrived at a finding that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 18 years; the claimant is aged 65 years, the deceased
was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month; dependency is assessed at Rs. 200/- and applying multiplier of 8 compensation of Rs. 19,200/- was awarded.
5. The appellant''s learned counsel contended that the deceased was running a dairy and he was a skilled carpenter. He was earning about Rs.
1200-1300/- per month. He had bright future. The claimant is old father of the deceased. He was totally dependent on him. The claims Tribunal
has wrongly assessed the dependancy at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. It should have been assessed minimum at Rs. 500/- per month and a
multiplier of 12 should have been adopted.
6. Respondents learned counsel contended that the deceased was an unmarried youngman. Hence, in future he would have married and would
have spent much more amount on his own family members. Taking this fact in to consideration, the claims Tribunal has rightly assessed
dependancy at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Hence no interference is called for.
7. In this case the claimant has deposed on oath that his son was earning Rs. 1200-1300/- per month, but in the claim petition the specific
averment is that he was earning Rs. 1,000/-. There is no other evidence, oral or documentary on record to corroborate his sole testimony. The
deceased was not the only son of the claimant. His two elder sons are alive. He has stated that they are living separately, but those sons have not
been examined. He is also owning 2-1/2 killas of land. He himself is a carpenter-The deceased was helping him in his occupation. The claimant has
also admitted that after the accident he has been given Rs. 15,000/- by the Government as ex gratia compensation. No doubt, this ex gratia
payment cannot be taken into consideration while awarding compensation in this case, but at the same time all other factors of the case enumerated
above have a strong bearing on the claimant''s case. In my view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependancy at the rate of Rs. 200/-
per month, but the multiplier of 8 is wrongly applied. In my view, it should be 12 calculated accordingly the amount of compensation comes to Rs.
28,800/-. According to me, this should have been awarded as compensation to the appellant.
8. With this modification in the impugned award the appeal is allowed. The claimant is entitled to recover Rs. 28,800/- as compensation from the
respondents with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.