Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1266 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2000-10-19

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Harbhajan Kaur and two others directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaland-har, dated 23.3.1985. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 77,000/- to the appellants. Harbhajan Kaur was entitled to receive Rs. 47,000/- on her behalf and Rs. 15,000/- each or behaif of appellants No. 2 and 3. The said amount was to be deposited in the fixed deposit account of each of the appellants within a week of its withdrawal with any scheduled bank. But she was entitled to receive the interest accruing on the said fixed deposit accounts of the minor claimants during their minority period and she would undertake to spend the said amount of interest of their upkeep, education and welfare. It was directed that in case the respondents did not pay or deposit the amount of compensation within two months, the appellants shall be entitled to receive the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. 2. The relevant facts are that Gurmukh deceased was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 and 3. He was working as a carpenter at Sura-Nusi with M.E.S. On 26.5.1985 at 10.00 a.m. near Janta Colony on Jalandhar-Kartarpur road in the area of Sura - Nusi. The deceased was going to join his duty along with other cyclists. They were going on the left side of the road. A Punjab Roadways Bus bearing registration No. PUQ 1202 driven by Jasbir Singh respondent came from the rear side. It first struck against the cycle of Kidar Nath who fell on the Katcha berm of the road and then Gurmukh Singh deceased was crushed underneath the bus. He died at the spot. It was claimed that he died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 being employers were arrayed as respondents. Compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed. 3. Both respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and identical was the written statement of respondent No. 3. It had been stated that the bus was being driven at a very moderate speed. When it reached near Sura Nusi depot, another bus was noticed corning from the opposite direction. Compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed. 3. Both respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and identical was the written statement of respondent No. 3. It had been stated that the bus was being driven at a very moderate speed. When it reached near Sura Nusi depot, another bus was noticed corning from the opposite direction. The deceased all of the sudden came on the road from right side and without seeing the two buses coming from opposite directions, tried to cross the road in a haste. He had crossed half of the road to avoid accident. Respondent No. 3 who was blowing the horn had slowed the speed of the bus. He took it partly on the Katcha berm. Thus, it was pointed out that it was the negligence of the deceased rather than of the bus driver. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that respondent No. 3 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further held that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 790/- per month. His carry home salary was Rs. 663/- the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 100/- for looking after his old father and held that Rs. 400/- would be given by the deceased to the appellants for their monthly expenses. The multiplier of 16 was applied. Accordingly, compensation in the sum of Rs. 77,000/- was awarded details of which have already been given above. 5. The short question agitated was as to whether the compensation awarded is inadequate or not. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Tribunal was totally wrong in awarding Rs. 100/- per month towards the old father of the deceased for maintenance. According to him, there was noevidence in this regard. 6. The said argument, indeed, cannot be ignored. Harbhajan Kaur, appellant No. 1, had appeared as AW 2. She had stated that she and appellants No. 2 and 3 were the dependents on the deceased. The only evidence on the record is that her father-in-law was alive and was 80 years of age. There was no evidence that any amount was given to the father of the deceased by the deceased for maintenance. Thus, awarding maintenance to the father of the deceased at Rs. 100/- per month from the salary is not borne from the record. The said deduction from the salary is uncalled for. There was no evidence that any amount was given to the father of the deceased by the deceased for maintenance. Thus, awarding maintenance to the father of the deceased at Rs. 100/- per month from the salary is not borne from the record. The said deduction from the salary is uncalled for. The said amount was stated to be contributed towards the household expenses. In other words, the appellants were entitled to Rs. 1200/- per year as compensation and with the multiplier of 16 it would come to Rs. 19,200/-. To that extent, the award of the Tribunal requires modification. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed in part and the award is modified to the extent referred to above. In other words, the appellants were further entitled to Rs. 19,200/- as compensation. If the amount now awarded is not paid or deposited within a month, the appellants would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment till realisation, there being no other modification of the order of the Tribunal. 7. Appeal partly allowed.