IMPORTANT POINTS
Compensation-Dependency-Personal expenses of the deceased are limited one third of his monthly income-Rest of his earnings taken into consideration for calculating the compensation to be paid to claimants.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

1. The legal heirs of Ajit Singh deceased have filed this appeal wherein challenge has been made to the award dated 1.2.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was awarded on account of the death of Ajit Singh in a road accident on 30.7.1986.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the death of Ajit Singh, aged 44 years, in a road accident on 30.7.1986, his widow Gurmeet Kaur, two minor sons Gurpreet Singh and Nirmaljit Singh, and one minor daughter Harpinder Kaur filed a claim petition against the owner, driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.HPG-2309, as well as the Insurance Company. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Ultimately, under issue Nos.2 and 3 it was held by the Tribunal that Ajit Singh had died as a result of rash and negligent driving by Malkiat Singh (respondent No.2) of the truck bearing registration No.HPG-2309. According to the claim made by the claimants, deceased Ajit Singh was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from all sources of income. However, the Tribunal while relying on the salary certificate of the deceased, wherein it was mentioned that the deceased was earning total emoluments of Rs.1549.50, assessed monthly dependency of the deceased at Rs.850/- and also by applying the multiplier or 14, it awarded an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount with effect from the date of application till realization. In order to challenge the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal.

3. It has ‘been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring the income of the deceased from the milch cattle as well as from agriculture and only calculating compensation on the basis of the salary of the deceased. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that expectancy of life is 70 years, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘14’ keeping in view the years of supernanuation of the deceased at the age of 58 years. The counsel contends that after his retirement, the deceased would have engaged himself in some other assignment and would also have been granted pension after retirement. Thus, the counsel contends that the multiplier of ‘14’ had wrongly been applied by the Tribunal. Another contention raised by Mr.K.G. Chaudhary is that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the dependency of” the claimants at Rs.850/- out of the total monthly sal’ary of Rs.1549.50 of the deceased.

4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently been controverted by Mr. Inderjit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, respondent No.3. It has also been contended by Mr.Inderjit Sharma that the liability of the Insurance Company could not be more than Rs.l,50,000/- as the Truck in question was insured for that sum only.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties - and gone through the case file very minutely.

5. The undisputed facts of the case are that Ajit Singh deceased was 44 years of age and was working as Inspector, Co- operative Societies, Gurdaspur at the time of his death in a road accident on 30.7.1986. It is also not disputed that he was earning monthly salary of Rs.1549.50. The fact that he was also supplementing his income through milch cattle and also, from, agricultural land has not been proved by the claimants by adducing any cogent evidence on record. Thus, no reliance can be placed on their version that the deceased was supplementing his income through milch cattle as well as from agricultural \land. No evidence with regard to his landholding has been adduced on record by the claimants. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased