Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.@mdashThis is claimants'' appeal challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana whereby their claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that there was no loss to the estate of the deceased Naresh Kumar and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 24.1.1984, Naresh Kumar, (deceased) died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of Pritam Singh (respondent No. 3), driver of Bus No. PBP-3740 belonging to respondent No. 2. The deceased was alleged to be earning Rs. 2,500/- per month from his business at Malerkotla.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents.
4. After perusing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that Naresh Kumar (deceased) died on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. However, on the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that there was no loss to the estate of the deceased as Usha Rani, his wife stepped into his shoes after his death and therefore, it cannot be said that she suffered any financial loss and held that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.
5. Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that there is definite evidence on the record of the case that the loss was caused to the claimants because of the death of Naresh Kumar as there is unrebutted statement of Kewal Krishan Gupta, PW-1, according to which the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month as the deceased was working as partner in the firm. Learned Counsel has argued that the Tribunal has erred at law while applying the ratio of Lachhman Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. I 1984 ACC 489 , as the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the loss of service of deceased caused to the appellants because he was the only male member of the family of the claimants.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has vehemently supported the judgment of the Tribunal and has argued that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The facts of this appeal are not in dispute. The only question before this Court for determination is whether the appellants, who are the legal representatives of deceased Naresh Kumar, are entitled to the compensation on account of loss of services of the deceased caused to them and whether any financial loss has been caused to them on account of his death. While passing the impugned award, even the Tribunal has found that deceased Naresh Kumar was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no rebuttal evidence to contradict the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. Rather there are statements of AW-4 and AW-5 that deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month.
9. May be that there was no loss to the business because of the hard work done by Usha Rani but the claimants have been certainly deprived of the services rendered by the deceased for the family business. The observations of the Tribunal that no loss has been caused to the appellants for the reason that Usha Rani has stepped into the shoes of the deceased, is not sustainable legally. Rather, from this fact, it is clearly established that the claimants have been deprived of the services of the deceased Naresh Kumar for running their business. The mere fact that the sufferer starts earning by the dint of her own efforts would not absolve the tort feasor of his liability to reimburse the claimants for the loss caused, by way of compensation. For any aforesaid view, I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
The mere fact that he sufferer starts earning by the dint of his or her own efforts, would not absolve the tort feasor of his liability to reimburse the claimants for the loss caused, by way of compensation. It is unimaginable for social welfare legislation vide which the Legislature has provided for the liability to pay compensation and impliedly provided for the calculation of the same and specifically provided that the first compensation has to be assessed u/s 140 and if the claimants are entitled to any other compensation, in that eventuality the compensation u/s 140 is to be assessed and paid and it is only if the compensation under the other provision is higher than the difference between the two shall be paid in addition to the compensation granted u/s 140. The compensation which the claimant got on account of the Group Insurance Scheme can by no stretch of imagination be termed as substitute for the compensation for the tortuous act committed by the tort feasor. Neither grant of special pensionary benefits would be a substitute for compensation for the additional benefit could be deducted from the just compensation payable under the statute (Section 40 read with Section 141 of the Act), which categorically debars making of any deduction on account of such payment from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Giving of service on compassionate ground is again totally an irrelevant consideration while assessing the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The fact of starting or earning by any dependant member entitled to compensation is no ground to deprive him of the compensation for the loss caused by the delinquent or person liable to reimburse the claimant by way of compensation.
10. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the appellants are entitled to be compensated on account of death of Naresh Kumar at least for the services rendered by him. Though there is some evidence on record that deceased Naresh Kumar was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month from his business but no documentary proof has been placed on record by the appellants in this regard. Even from the Income Tax Returns filed on behalf of the firm of the family business, no income towards salary of the deceased can be determined. But taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was providing his services to the family and as such was contributing at least to the extent an able bodied person can earn even as a daily wager. At the time of accident, the average daily-wage of a person was not less than Rs. 40/- per day. Thus, the income of the deceased cannot be less than Rs. 1,000/- per month. After applying a cut of 1/4th for the expenses which deceased might have been spending on his own, the annual dependency of the claimant-appellants is determined as Rs. 9,000/- per annum. Keeping in view the age of deceased Naresh Kumar at the time of death, a multiplier of 15 can be safely applied in his case.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside and as a result, thereof the claim petition stands allowed. The claimants are held entitled to Rs. 1,35,000/- as compensation on account of death of Naresh Kumar caused in a motor vehicle accident. They shall also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
