Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1413 (PNJ)

P. R. T. C. , Patiala v. Jagan Nath

2000-11-20

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is an appeal filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and has been directed against the award dated 20.9.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, which awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of compensation to the respondents. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Accident in this case took place on 21.5.1988 in which Amrit Lal died. According to the claimants, deceased Amrit Lal was aged about 40 years at the time of his death and he was a shopkeeper earning about Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of his death. Claim petition was contested by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. According to them, the accident did not take place in the manner as alleged by the claimants/respondents and Bachhittar Singh was not driving the bus in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. According to the respondent/appellant, Amrit Lal did not die as a result of injuries received at the time of accident. 3. Re-joinder was also filed by the claimants and on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PJG 7373 by Bachhittar Singh respondent ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. 4. The parties were given the opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of the trial it was held that the accident did take place on the part of the negligence of the driver of the bus. While assessing the compensation the Tribunal calculated the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 1,250/- and by applying the multiplier of 25 awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the claimants. 5. Aggrieved by the award of learned Tribunal, the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. 7. It is proved on the record that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. 6. I have heard Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. 7. It is proved on the record that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. The claim petition had been filed by six claimants i.e. parents, widow and children of the deceased. It is further proved on the record that all the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the dependency should have been calculated at Rs. 1,500/- per mensem. So far as the multiplier of 25 is concerned, it is on the higher side. It should have been 16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- by way of compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. This Court allows the present appeal in part and awards a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants/respondents along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. Out of the awarded amount, only Rs. 88,000/- shall be paid to the parents in equal shares and the rest of the amount along with interest shall be paid in equal shares to the widow and children of the deceased. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.