Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 186 (PNJ)

Chhatar Singh v. Zile Singh

2001-02-06

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2001
Judgment V. S. Aggarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment two F. A. O. Nos.340 and 341 of 1986 and Cross-objections Nos.74-CII and 75-CII of 1986 can conveniently be disposed of together. Both these appeals are directed against the common award of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, dated 18.1.1985. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal awarded rs.18,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation to Chhatar Singh and Chand kaur, parents of the deceased, and dismissed the claim petition of Piari, alleged widow of deceased Neer Singh. 2. The facts alleged are that both different set of appellants had filed two petitions claiming compensation under section 110-A read with section 92-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. It is alleged that on 22.12.1983 truck bearing registration No. HRK 8109 on way to Rohtak from Jhajjar stuck up in the roadside fields near village karontha. It belongs to Zile Singh respondent. When the truck could not be driven, om Parkash truck driver engaged two tractors to pull out the truck. One of the said tractors was that of Neer Singh. In the process of pulling out the truck, tractor no. HRO 3744 driven by Neer Singh turned as a result of which Neer Singh died. Asserting rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent Om Parkash, present petitions have been filed. 3. Claim petitions were contested by the respondents. It was denied that the accident had taken place as alleged by the appellants. It was pleaded that while pulling out the truck, Neer Singh came under his own tractor because he did not know how to drive the tractor. It was denied that neer Singh was the earning hand. It was further denied that Piari is the widow of neer Singh. 4. The learned Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. It was held that the appellants have failed to prove that Piari is the widow of Neer Singh. It was further held that the accident of Neer singh took place as a result of rash and negligent act of the respondent owner of the truck and its driver. Compensation of rs.18,000 was awarded to the parents of the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed. 5. It was further held that the accident of Neer singh took place as a result of rash and negligent act of the respondent owner of the truck and its driver. Compensation of rs.18,000 was awarded to the parents of the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed. 5. So far as the appeal of Piari is concerned, learned counsel contended, firstly, that she is the widow of Neer Singh and in any case asserted that permission should be granted to lead additional evidence to prove the said fact. He urged that strict provisions of Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure need not be attracted. 6. On careful consideration, one is constrained to state that these pleas of the learned counsel necessarily must fail and have to be rejected. When the evidence was being produced before the learned tribunal, there was no word uttered by any of the witnesses that Piari is the widow of the deceased. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim that for the purposes of the claim petition it has not been established that Piari is the widow of Neer Singh. 7. As regards leading of additional evidence, even if for the sake of arguments it be taken that strict provisions of Code of civil Procedure are not attracted, still as far as possible the Tribunal would act in accordance with the said principle. When there was full opportunity granted and evidence was not produced, it is too late in the day to allow additional evidence. Lacunas cannot be allowed to be filled up. Otherwise also, the appeals can conveniently be disposed, of without the said additional evidence. Necessarily, the court does not require it for the purposes of pronouncement of judgment. When the appellants did not produce sufficient evidence, consequently at this stage there is no ground to permit additional evidence to be produced. The said application, therefore, must fail and there is no option but to hold that the appeal of Piari is without any merit. 8. As regards the appeal filed by Chhatar Singh and Chand Kaur is concerned, the sole argument raised was that the compensation awarded is inadequate. The said application, therefore, must fail and there is no option but to hold that the appeal of Piari is without any merit. 8. As regards the appeal filed by Chhatar Singh and Chand Kaur is concerned, the sole argument raised was that the compensation awarded is inadequate. The learned Tribunal had taken the contribution of the deceased towards his parents to be Rs.250 per month and awarded multiplier of 6 keeping in view that both the appellants were above 65 years of age at the relevant time. 9. The argument of the appellants learned counsel was that the deceased was earning much more and in any case the multiplier is on the lower side. Crossobjections have also been filed on behalf of the respondents. 10. During the course of evidence, it was stated that Neer Singh was earning rs.2,000 per month at the time of his death. But in the anxiety to claim more, it was ignored that in the claim petition it has only been mentioned that Neer Singh was earning Rs.1,000 per month. The said exaggeration, therefore, necessarily leads one to conclude that what is being attempted to be is not proved. The fact not pleaded cannot be allowed to be proved. The learned Tribunal taking stock of the fact that it is not shown as to how the deceased was earning Rs.1,000 per month, keeping in view the educational qualifications of the deceased, had rightly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.700 per month. This is because he is only assisting his father in the agriculture and driving the tractor. Since the deceased has to be got married, the dependency of the parents had rightly been taken to be Rs.250 per month. 11. As regards the multiplier, indeed, the contention must succeed. The learned tribunal took note of the fact that the appellants were more than 65 years of age or in other words felt that they may not survive for another 10-12 years, but pendency of the appeal in these 15 years have proved that logic to be wrong. The appellants are still alive. Taking stock of these facts, it must follow that the appellants are entitled to the multiplier of 8 instead of 6. 12. As a result of the aforesaid, the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased must be increased to Rs.24,000. 13. The appellants are still alive. Taking stock of these facts, it must follow that the appellants are entitled to the multiplier of 8 instead of 6. 12. As a result of the aforesaid, the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased must be increased to Rs.24,000. 13. For these reasons, cross-objection, the appeal filed by Piari must fail and is dismissed, but the appeal of the parents of the deceased is allowed and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified. Instead, the parents of the deceased are entitled to rs.24,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. However, the interest shall not be calculated afresh with respect to the amount which had already been paid. Orders accordingly.