Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 368 (PNJ)

Nirmal Dua v. Baldev Singh

2000-03-30

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Om Parkash Dua, an audit officer in the Directorate of Audit Defence Services, New Delhi while on deputation with the Directorate of Audit, Food, Chandigarh was knocked down by a truck No. CHW-3894 while he was standing in front of his house on April 7, 1983 at 7.45 P.M. The gate and the boundary wall of the house was also damaged. Om Parkash Dua had died on account of injuries received in this accident, therefore, his widow amd the children-claimants filed a claim petition under 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation. He was earning Rs. 2700/- per month. He was 50 years old at the time of his death. A sum of Rs. three lakhs was claimed by way of compensation on account of his death and a sum of Rs. 5000/- was claimed on account of damage to the gate and boundary wall. 2. Baldev Singh, driver, has denied the accident in toto. In fact, he was not driver of the truck. He has been falsely implicated as some other speeding truck had caused the accident and also hit truck No. CHW-3894. 3. The Oriental Insurance Co., Patiala-respondent No. 2 with whom the truck was insured, had controverted the plea taken up by the claimants and pleaded inter alia that the liability of the Insurance Co. was only up to Rs. 1,50,000/- qua the third party. 4. The State Bank of India-respondent No. 4 also denied its liability to pay the amount on the premise that the loan of Rs. 2,20,000/- was recoverable by the Bank from the truck owner. It is further averred that the petition is bad for misjoinder of the parties. 5. The above controversy gave rise to the following issued framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal :- 1. Whether the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. CHW-3894 driven by Baldev Singh-respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck driven by Baldev Singh-respondent No. 1. OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck driven by Baldev Singh-respondent No. 1. As a consequence thereof, the claim petition was allowed and the claimants were allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent in the affirmative. 6. Neither the claimants were satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal nor the respondents were satisfied with the liability of the payment of compensation fastened upon them. Therefore, the aggrieved parties have challenged the award by way of filing appeal and cross-objections respectively. 7. I have Shri C.S. Pasricha, learned counsel for the appellants. However, none has appeared on behalf of the cross-objectors. FAO No. 193 of 1985 8. Mr. Pasricha contended that there is no split up system provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. Once the Tribunal concluded that the dependency is assessed at Rs. 1300/- and had applied 16 as multiplier, then the entire amount should have been allowed to the claimants. Cross Objections 9. The objection taken by the cross-objectors was with respect to the applying of multiplier of 16. They asserted that the multiplier of 16 was not appropriate and that instead, at the most, a multiplier of 5 should have been applied. Secondly, the deceased would not have contributed to his family Rs. 500/- per mensem after his retirement for a period of 11 years. Thus, on this short ground, the amount awarded by the Tribunal needs to be slashed. 10. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as the pleadings of the cross objectors do not appear to be convincing. The learned Tribunal has already taken into consideration the income of the deceased, the dependency and other factors. The multiplier of 16 is also appropriate. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this score is not required to be disturbed. 11. The Tribunal has already taken a very lenient view in awarding the compensation to the claimants and no case is made out for further reducing the same. The multiplier of 16 is also appropriate. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this score is not required to be disturbed. 11. The Tribunal has already taken a very lenient view in awarding the compensation to the claimants and no case is made out for further reducing the same. It the result, the Cross-Objections are dismissed. 12. However, it is made out from the record as well as from the impugned award that the claimants had suffered loss/damage to the gate and wall of the house to the extent of Rs. 5000/- and this fact remains unrebutted. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of damage to the gate and the wall. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in not allowing this amount to the claimants. Similarly, the Tribunal was in error in not allowing the loss of consortium and funeral charges and on the score the claimants are allowed Rs. 5000/-. 13. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The claimants will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- more in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 6.6.1983. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to make the payment within two months from today. In case, they fail to do so, then the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the claimants would be recoverable alongwith the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 6.6.1983 till its payment. The Appeal and the Cross-Objections are therefore, disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.