1974 INSC 0117
                                         Smt. Hardeep Kaur and Another

                                                           Vs

                                           State of Punjab and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1126 of 1970

                                     (P. Jagmohan Reddy, S. N. Dwivedi JJ)

                                                      21.03.1974

                                                    JUDGEMENT

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. ­

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
which interfered and reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Punjab by Rs. 24,000.

2. The appellants are the parents of one Gurdeep Singh who, while he and his fiancee were going on
a scooter, was knocked down by a P.W.D. lorry belonging to the Government of Punjab and was
killed. It is not denied that Gurdeep Singh was working in England and was earning at the rate of
18-13-8 per week. He came home to get married and, as stated above, died in the accident. The
parents of Gurdeep Singh filed a claim petition. His fiancee also filed a claim petition but did not
pursue it. Both the Tribunal as well as the High Court found that the driver of the P.W.D. truck was
negligent, that Gurdeep Singh was earning at the rate of 18-13-8 per week, that he was 25 years of
age and that the span of life of his parents would be 60 to 65 years and that compensation to be
awarded should be calculated on the basis of 20 years capitalisation of the amounts which he would
be sending to his parents. While the Tribunal thought, though the evidence showed that the deceased
was sending Rs. 800 per month, the amount that he would have sent to his parents. While the
Tribunal thought, though the evidence showed that the deceased was sending Rs. 800 per month, the
amount that he would have sent to his parents, having regard to the fact that he would have been
married and would have a family, could reasonably be estimated as Rs. 400 per month. The High
Court calculated the compensation that one-third of his earnings per month, which was Rs. 1,000,
would be sent. This it fixed at Rs. 300 per month. On the basis of Rs. 400 per month, it is not denied
that 20 year's capitalisation would be Rs. 96,000 which was the amount awarded by the Tribunal; on
the basis that Rs. 300 would be sent the compensation would be Rs. 72,000.

3. In our view, the High Court has committed a factual error in assuming that the earnings of
Gurdeep Singh were Rs. 1,000 per month while in fact it has accepted the Tribunal's finding that he
was earning (pounds) 18-13-8 per week which would come to Rs. 1,500 per month. If this fact was
taken into consideration and the High Court had not committed the error of taking the earnings of
the deceased at Rs. 1,000 per month, it would have certainly confirmed the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.

4. In this view, this appeal must be allowed. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High
Court and confirm the compensation of Rs. 96,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants will
have their costs in this Court as well as in the High Court.
</html