@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mehtab S. Gill, J.@mdashAn unfortunate accident which cut down prematurely the life of Harinder Singh, aged about 23 years at the time of accident is an occasion in this appeal filed by his parents claiming a compensation of Rs. two lacs.
2. The facts which led to the filing of this appeal lie in a narrow compass.
On 7.4.1984, Harinder Singh deceased was driving scooter bearing registration No. PJU-1443 and Baldev Kaur was a pillion rider. When they reached ahead of Chaheru Bus Stop, bus bearing registration No. PBP-3666 came from the opposite direction. It was being driven by Santokh Singh respondent rashly and negligently and at a high speed. It dashed against the scooter of Harinder Singh as a result of which he died.
3. In the written statements, the respondents have controverted the claim of the appellants. They took a specific stand that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. On issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal gave a firm finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Santokh Singh. On issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal has held that the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/-
5. Feeling aggrieved against the award of learned Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal for seeking enhanced compensation.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the entire paper book carefully.
7. The counsel for, the respondents could not satisfy me as to how the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by Santokh Singh, respondent No. 1 are fallacious. I do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impeccable findings'' of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 regarding the accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1. Therefore, the same are affirmed.
8. Compensation to be assessed in such like cases is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned. Mohinder Singh, appellant who is the father of the deceased, stated in his deposition that the deceased worked as a Mechanic in the workshop of M/s Kapur Singh and Sons at Ludhiana and he used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month. He used to give Rs. 700/- or Rs. 800/- per month to him and his wife Harbhajan Kaur. Satwant Singh, AW3, who is a partner of Kapur Singh and Sons also corroborated the statement of Mohinder Singh appellant. The deceased, at the time of his death in the accident in question, was only 23 years old and unmarried. I am not oblivious of the fact that the deceased was likely to raise his own family on account of his marriage and was expected to meet the other expenses also but he would have supported his parents in their old age even after his marriage. Therefore, I put the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellants at Rs. 30,000/-.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the appellants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs Thirty thousands only). The amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal will be adjusted against this enhanced amount of compensation. In addition, the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of this appeal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
The award of the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Appeal allowed.
