JAI SINGH v. CORPORAL S. R. VOHRA — 1993 DIGILAW 517 (DEL)

P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ). These two appeals are directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated January 15,1980, by which he awarded Rs. 45. 900. 00 as compensation against respondents 1 and 2, namely. Driver S. R. Vohra and the Union of India. ( 2 ). The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased Subedar Prehlad Singh after being discharged from militay service had taken up the task of plying a taxi for his livlihood. He has left behind 10 children out of whom one child had died during the pendency of this appeal. On the fateful day i. e. May 12, 1974, the deceased was plying his taxi at about 8. 45 PM on Sardar Patel Road. He had come from the Connaught Place and was proceeding towards Dhaula Kuan and was stated to be going on the proper side of the road when suddenly the truck being driven by the said driver, the employee of the Union of India, had come on the wrong side of the road and had struck the taxi on the front and the speed of the truck was as such that not only the taxi was crushed but the truck also jumped over the side patri. ( 3 ). In support of the claim that the accident was due to result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Union of India, the claimants had examined PW5 Vinod Kumar and PW6 Sultan Singh. Vinod Kumar was present in the taxi as a cleaner whereas Sultan Singh is stated to be a public witness. They have stated that the taxi was proceeding at a speed of 40-50 kilometres per hour while the truck came at a high speed of 80 kilometres per hour and come on the wrong side of the road and struck the taxi on the front. In rebuttal only the driver of the truck appeared in the witness-box and deposed that in fact, he was not negligent in driving the truck and it was the taxi driver who had brought about the accident. In cross-examination he had to admit that after the accident was caused the truck did not stop and had jumped the side patri which was on the wrong side of the road. In cross-examination he had to admit that after the accident was caused the truck did not stop and had jumped the side patri which was on the wrong side of the road. The claimants had also proved on record the photographs of the truck and the said taxi which by themselves give an illuminative picture which do go to support the version of the two witnesses of the claimants. I have no reason to differ with the finding of the Tribunal that in fact, this accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver of the. Union of India. ( 4 ). It is not disputed that the said driver of the Union of India was driving the truck as part of his official duty. So, the Tribunal was right in awarding the compensation agasinst respondents 1 and 2. ( 5 ). As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs. 300. 00 from plying of taxi and Rs. 78. 00 as pension and after deducting the amount which the deceased must be incurring on himself, he held that Rs. 250. 00 per month was definitely being spent on the maintenance of the family members. The deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal REFERRED TO the multiplier of 18 years. Learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued mat the Tribunal was not right legally in applying the multiplier of only 18 years. He has argued that a multiplier of 29 years ought to have been REFERRED TO because the deceased was healthy and was plying the said taxi and could have easily continued to earn by plying the taxi at least till the age of 70 yrs. or so. ( 6 ). It is true as urged by learned counsel for the Union of India that there is no evidence led on the record for proving the history of any longivity in the family of the deceased. She has argued that in absence of any such evidence the longivity in the family should have been assessed at 65 years and the capacity to earn of the deceased should have been limited to 60 years or so. She has referred to few judgments in this connection. She has argued that in absence of any such evidence the longivity in the family should have been assessed at 65 years and the capacity to earn of the deceased should have been limited to 60 years or so. She has referred to few judgments in this connection. I may refer to judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Jyotsnadey and Others Vs State of Assam and Others, 1987 ACJ 172, in which case the accident took place in the year 1973. The victim was aged about 45 years. The Supreme Court held that the span of life should have been taken to be 70 years in view of high rise in life expectancy and thus the multiplier of 25 years was made applicable in that case. ( 7 ). A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surinder Kumar and Another Vs Tajinder Kaur and Others, 1992, ACJ 583, had also held the life span to be of 70 years. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident in that case and the multiplier of 40 years was held to be justified. ( 8 ). It is true that in Smt. Prema and Another Vs M. P. State R. T. C. and Others, 1 (1993) ACC 345, the Supreme Court had REFERRED TO the multiplier of 24 years when the deceased was aged about 26 years. But that decision was based on peculiar facts of that case. At any rate, the judgment of the Supreme Court laying down that average age of Indian has jumped to 70 years due to better medical conditions prevailing in the country, has not been set at not (naught) by this judgment. In the case of Smt. Prema (supra) there was even longivity in the family. Be that as it may in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above and also judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, I would hold that the average age which the deceased would have lived would have been 70 years particularly when he had military background. ( 9 ). In the case of Pritpal Kaur and Ors. Vs D. T. C. and Others, 1 (1987) ACC 393, the life expectancy of the deceased was taken to be 65 yrs. But the court had kept in view the age of retirement as 60 yrs. ( 9 ). In the case of Pritpal Kaur and Ors. Vs D. T. C. and Others, 1 (1987) ACC 393, the life expectancy of the deceased was taken to be 65 yrs. But the court had kept in view the age of retirement as 60 yrs. In the present case there was no question of the deceased retiring as he was having personal employment of plying the taxi. ( 10 ). In the case of Agya Kaur and Others Vs M. C. D. (Now D. T. C.), 1 (1986) ACC 252, a judgment of Single Bench of this Court, the Court had come to the conclusion that the deceased would have continued in a particular job upto the age of 60 years. So, the earning capacity of the deceased was taken upto the age of 60 years. Again, it is a question of fact to be determined as to how long period the deceased could have continued to have the earning capacity. Facts of no two cases can be similar on such questions. ( 11 ). Keeping in view the facts of the present case it can be safely held that the deceased, who was not shown to be having any ailments, could have continued to ply the taxi till the age of 70 years or so. So, the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of only 19 years, rather a multiplier of 29 years was called for in the present case. ( 12 ). The learned counsel for the claimants has also argued that the earning capacity of the deceased could have increased in future and the same ought to have been also given due importance while assessing the money which he was to make available for the maintenance of the family every month. When we are applying the multiplier of 29 years and are awarding a lumpsum amount of compensation, all these factors of deceased having capacity to earn in future in somewhat better way are taken care of. If we apply the multiplier of 29 years at the amount of Rs. 250. 00 per month which the deceased was spending on the maintenance of the family, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 87,000. 00. ( 13 ). I allow the appeal of the claimants and modify the award of the Tribunal and grant compensation of Rs. 87,000. 250. 00 per month which the deceased was spending on the maintenance of the family, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 87,000. 00. ( 13 ). I allow the appeal of the claimants and modify the award of the Tribunal and grant compensation of Rs. 87,000. 00 to the claimants against respondents 1 and 2. The increased amount of compensation shall bear the interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed to that extent where as the appeal filed by the Union of India is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The security which was furnished by the claimants while withdrawing the amount awarded by the Tribunal stands cancelled.