Ashok Kumar Malik, a Science Graduate from D.A.V. College, Amritsar, Guru Nanak Dev University and who had also obtained a Diploma in Textile Chemistry from Punjab State Board of Technical Education in Ist Division, met with an accident on 4.6.1985. He died. He left behind his widow and an infant child and parents, who had crossed the age of fifty. The deceased was going on a motor -cycle bearing registration No. JKR 259, when he was near Tawi Bridge he was hit by an Army Truck No. 75-D 19212/W. The death appeared to be instant. When the claim petition was preferred the plea taken was that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. Compensation was accordingly claimed. With a view to sustain the claim regarding the compensation, it was pleaded that the aforermentioned Science Graduate with a Diploma in Textile Chemistry was carrying on his business of cloth merchant. This was from a shop located in Jammu. His income was put across at Rs. 5000/- by two of the witnesses and Rs. 6000/per month by another witness. He was found to be paying a sum of Rs. 800/- as rent for residential accommodation and in this manner the Tribunal observed, His income could not have been less that Rs. 3000/-. This figure was taken note of. The personal expenses of the deceased and his widow were taken to be around 2/3rd and the dependency of the infant was put around Rs. 500/-. So far as parents are concerned, it was concluded that he must be contributing about Rs. 250/- for meeting the expenses which could have been incurred by the mother. As such, the dependency of the mother and the infant was fixed at Rs. 750/-. The annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 9000/-. The multiplier of 15" was applied and the amount of compensation was accordingly awarded. The fact that the widow had re-married was taken note of and therefore, no benefit of this was given to the minor. It was precisely for this reason an observation was made that the amount which the deceased must be spending on himself and the widow is required to be taken note of. Now this decision given by the Tribunal is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. So far as the issue regarding negligence is concerned, this need not to be gone into as Union of India has not filed the appeal. Thus the only material issue is issue No. 2, which is with regard to quantum of compensation. This would also require determination of the question as to whether a widow on remarriage dis-entitles herself to claim compensation on account of death of her husband.

3. As indicated above, it has come on record that the deceased was a Science Graduate. He was having proficiency in Textile Chemistry. Instead of opting for a job, he opted to carry on his own business.

4. PW Janak Kumar Khorana stated that the income of the deceased was around Rs. 5000/- per month. Nasib Singh is another witness, who gave the same figure. Krishan Chand PW stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- PM. He stated that the deceased was contributing Rs. 4000/- to his family. Dr. J.N. Raina, PW stated that the deceased was paying rent for the residential accommodation. This was to the tune of Rs. 800/- PM. If the figure as given by these witnesses is taken note of then the reasonable way of looking at would be to take into consideration the average of the two figures i.e. Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 6000/-. The average of this would come to Rs. 5,500/-. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the deceased was paying Rs. 800/- PM as rent and therefore, his income could not be less than Rs. 3000/- It was this figure which was taken note of. The evidence led by the claimants in the shape of statements of two witnesses is that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 5000/- and one witness has stated that he was having an income of Rs.6000/- per month. Thus, if the totality of the evidence is taken note of then a finding can be recorded that the deceased was must be earning Rs. 5500/-. He was paying Rs. 800/ as rent for resi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document