STATE OF HARYANA v. J. N. JOSHI — 1979 DIGILAW 160 (DEL)

Rajindar Sachar, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State of Haryana against the award of Rs. 15,190. 00 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) AN accident took place on 18. 4. 71 at 1. 30 p. m. The deceased was Suresh Kumar Joshi aged about 21 years, the son of respondents No. 1 and 2, the father and the mother respectively. The version given out by the respondents was that on the said day the deceased was going to Red Fort in scooter which was being driven by the deceased while the father, respondent No. 1 was sitting on the pillion seat. When they reached near Police Station Civil Lines crossing, one Haryana Roadways Bus No. HRG 424 came from opposite direction. The said bus came on a wrong side of the island (crossing) and instead of going on its left hand side the said bus came directly on the wrong side of the road and hit the scooter directly. Deceased, Suresh Kumar fell unconscious on the road, he was removed to the hospital and later on died. On these allegations the respondents brought the claim asking for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. The tribunal found that the respondents were the legal representatives and were entitled to put in the application. The tribunal also found that the deceased sustained fatal injuries, due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HRG-424 on the part of respondent No. 3 and that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the deceased. As regards the compensation the tribunal calculated that the deceased would have paid Rs. 100. 00 per month to the respondents for a period of 15 years and the pecuniary loss thus came to Rs. 18,000. 00 and after making a deduction of 15% on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life the total pecuniary loss sustained by the petitioners was worked out to Rs. 15,300. 00. Thereafter a deduction of Rs. 109. 00 on account of G. P. Fund of the deceased, received by the respondents, was made. Thus the total amount payable to the respondents was calculated at Rs. 15,190. 00. 15,300. 00. Thereafter a deduction of Rs. 109. 00 on account of G. P. Fund of the deceased, received by the respondents, was made. Thus the total amount payable to the respondents was calculated at Rs. 15,190. 00. The State of Haryana undaunted inspite of the finding of the tribunal and inspite of loss of life has chosen to come up to this court in appeal. ( 3 ) AN effort was made by Mr. Mehra, the learned counsel of the State to persuade me to hold that the bus was not being driven rashly and negligently. The effort though valiant was futile because the evidence on record of eye-witness is clear that the bus came from the opposite direction and instead of keeping on its side took a wrong turn on the island and knocked the scooter down. The tribunal has referred to the evidence of the witness at the spot and has found that it Was the rash and negligent driving of the bus which caused the accident. I have gone through the finding of the tribunal and I am not inclined to take a different view. I would, therefore, affirm the finding of the tribunal. ( 4 ) AS far the quantum of compensation the tribunal has found that the deceased would have made available a sum of Rs. 100. 00 per month to the respondents. I may mention that the respondents have also filed cross-objections claiming that the compensation should have been worked at a higher figure. The counsel for the respondents had stated that the father of the deceased had mentioned that the deceased was giving Rs. 250. 00 to the father and there was no reason why a lesser sum should have been fixed. It is common case that the deceased was a matriculate and was employed as Sub-Inspector in the Office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration and was getting Rs. 278. 00 per mensem in all. There is also some evidence that after a few years he might have gone to the grade of Rs. 210-425 and even further to the grade of Rs. 350-575. The argument of the counsel for the respondent was that considering that the appellant was 21 years of age and had good prospects in service, a larger amount than Rs. 100. 00 as his contribution to the respondents should have been allowed by the tribunal. 210-425 and even further to the grade of Rs. 350-575. The argument of the counsel for the respondent was that considering that the appellant was 21 years of age and had good prospects in service, a larger amount than Rs. 100. 00 as his contribution to the respondents should have been allowed by the tribunal. In assessing how much contribution the deceased would have paid, it is obvious that there is an element of probability and a kind of conjecture. Considering that he was getting Rs. 278. 00 per mensem the possibility of contribution fixed at Rs. 100. 00 per mensem cannot be said reasonable. Out of the monthly income of Rs. 278 of the deceased, Rs. 100. 00 is a fairly good estimate that would have been made available to the respondents. I cannot, therefore, accept either Mr. Mehra s contention that the amount should have been reduced or that of the counsel for the respondent that the amount should have been increased. No doubt the counsel for the respondent contended that in future years there was a prospect of the deceased getting higher pay, but then it cannot also be overlooked that the deceased was 21 years and in all probability was to get married after about 3 or 4 years and must also be having his own family. Even if he was to get higher grade of Rs. 425. 00 one cannot ignore that he would have his wife and possibly children to look after, as such the contribution of Rs. 100. 00 per mensem to the respondents/ claimants could not be expected to be increased. I therefore, see on reason to make any variation in the rate of Rs 100. 00 per mensem as contribution which would have been made by the deceased. ( 5 ) THE next question which the counsel for the respondent has raised is about 15 years period which has been taken by the tribunal as the period for which the claimant could have been expected to receive the contribution. The father of the deceased was about 50 years at the time of accident while the mother is stated to be 46 years. The evidence of the respondent No. 1, father is that his father died at the age of 50 while his mother at the age of 80 years. The father of the deceased was about 50 years at the time of accident while the mother is stated to be 46 years. The evidence of the respondent No. 1, father is that his father died at the age of 50 while his mother at the age of 80 years. There is no evidence with regard to the longivity in the family of the mother nor is there any other evidence about the uncles or grandfathers of the mother or the father. Considering the only evidence that we have is that the father of the respondent No. 1 died at 50 and his mother at the age of 80 years, the period of 15 years, taken by the tribunal would mean a longivity of 65 years for the father and 60 for the mother which is quite reasonable. I, therefore, do not find any reason to make any change in the period of 15 years for which the pecuniary loss must be calculated. I, however, find that the tribunal has made a deduction of 15% on account of lumpsum payment. This is rather a heavy deduction. The usual deduction, if at all, made is not more than 10% and I would therefore modify the deduction from 15% to 10%. The result will be that the respondent would be entitled to have suffered a pecuniary loss by the death of Suresh Kumar Joshi, their son, which would be calculated @ Rs. 100. 00 per month for a period of 15 years totalling to Rs. 18,000. 00, which reduced by 10% will amount to Rs. 16,200. 00. ( 6 ) ANOTHER objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is that the interest has been awarded from the date of the award, while it should have been given from the date of the application filed before the tribunal. He referred me to section 110 (CC) which empowers the tribunal to award interest from the date of the application. He referred me to section 110 (CC) which empowers the tribunal to award interest from the date of the application. In Minu B. Mehta and another v. Balkrishna Rama Chandra Nayan and another1, in which the tribunal awarded the compensation and directed that the interest be awarded from the date of filing of application : was up-held upto the Supreme Court, There is force in the submission and I see no reason why the appellant, State of Haryana should not pay the interest on the amount of award from the date of the application till payment. I would in the circumstances dismiss the appeal but allow the cross-objection and award the claimants a sum of Rs. 16,200. 00. I would, however, modify the calculation of interest and direct that the respondents will be entitled to interest @6% per annum from the date of the application (and not from the date of award) i e. 10. 6. 1971 to the date of the realisation of the amount awarded. The respondents/claimants will have the costs both here as well as before the tribunal.