Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 351 (PNJ)

Balvinder Kaur v. Ram Kumar

2001-03-15

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. Balvinder Kaur had filed the present F. A. O. and it has been directed against the award dated 2.12.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Ambala, who awarded a sum of rs.3,84,000 by way of compensation to the appellants, out of which a sum of rs.24,000 was allowed to the mother, parkash Kaur. 2. In this case Balwinder Singh has expired and he met with an accident on 16.9.93 when he was coming from village singhwala to Ambala City on a scooter in order to purchase the domestic goods. When he reached near Jalbera Chowk, ambala City, a bus bearing registration no. HR 08-8091 came from behind. It was being driven by Ram Kumar who did not give any horn. He did not control the vehicle as a result of which he dashed the vehicle against the deceased who fell on the ground along with scooter and sustained injuries including the injuries on his head. He was taken to the clinic of Dr. Tayal by hardev Singh, Sarpanch and Ujagar Singh and on reaching there he was declared dead. Deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of his death. He was employed in Primary Land Mortgage Bank, Ambala city on a monthly salary of Rs.3,647. It is also alleged by the claimants that the deceased was having an agricultural land and he was also maintaining a milk dairy and his total income was Rs.7,000 per month. With these broad allegations, the claimants have claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents and they attributed the negligence to the deceased himself. Issues were framed by the Tribunal as follows: (1) Whether the occurrence in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 ?. . . OPP (2) To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from whom?. . . OPP (3) Relief. 4. The parties were given the opportunities to lead evidence and issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. . . OPP (2) To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from whom?. . . OPP (3) Relief. 4. The parties were given the opportunities to lead evidence and issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Under issue No.2 the Tribunal awarded a compensation of rs.3,84,000 for the reasons given in para 15 of the order, which is reproduced as under: " (15) From the entire evidence led by the petitioners on this issue, in my opinion, it stands established on the record that the gross salary of Balwinder Singh deceased was Rs.3,337 per month, the salary certificate Exh. P-2, besides the provident Fund contribution of Rs.310. Balvinder Kaur (widow), PW 1 had deposed during her examination-in-chief that the deceased used to give Rs.2,500 per month to her for running the household. Nothing has come on the record to show that the deceased was saving any amount out of the salary received by him. The oral testimony of Balvinder Kaur, PW 1, and Hardev Singh, sarpanch, PW 4, about the income of balwinder Singh deceased from the buffaloes, in my opinion, cannot be accepted in the absence of any further proof. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it could certainly be said that the dependency of the petitioners on the deceased was rs.2,000 per month, i. e. , Rs.24,000 per annum. Taking the age of the deceased as 35 years, as alleged in the petition, as stated by Balvinder Kaur, PW 1, in my opinion, the suitable multiplier which could be applied in this case would be the multiplier of 16. Applying the said multiplier of 16 in this case, in my opinion, the total amount of compensation, which could be assessed, would come to rs.3,84,000 (Rs.24,000 x 16 ). The said amount of Rs.3,84,000 the petitioners would be entitled to claim for the death of Balwinder Singh deceased from respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. This issue is decided accordingly, in favour of the petitioners. " 5. ). Not satisfied with the finding of the tribunal the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 6. The matter was referred to the Lok adalat which gave the proposal that the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,26,080. This issue is decided accordingly, in favour of the petitioners. " 5. ). Not satisfied with the finding of the tribunal the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 6. The matter was referred to the Lok adalat which gave the proposal that the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,26,080. The lok Adalat calculated the dependency of the claimant at Rs.2,740 per month. It also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of funeral expenses and consortium charges. In this way, total compensation amounting to Rs.5,36,080 was proposed by the Lok adalat. 7. The State of Haryana has filed the objections to the suggestions and proposal of the Lok Adalat dated 13.9.2000. 8. I have heard Mr. Malkeet Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sultan Singh, learned aag, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. Supporting the finding of the Lok adalat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the deceased was maintaining two children, wife and mother and the Lok Adalat has rightly assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.2,740 per month. He also submitted that there is no scope for interference in the proposal of the Lok Adalat. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the deceased was only earning rs.3,647 per month. He was the earning member of the family. He was supposed to maintain his appearance. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs.24,000. Since the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of his death, therefore, a multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied and there is no scope of interference in the award given by the Tribunal. 11. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that there is some scope of enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was earning rs.3,647 per month at the time of his death as has been highlighted in para 15 of the award of the Tribunal. The deceased was an employee of Primary Land Mortgage bank. He was supposed to remain out of house in order to discharge his official duty. He was also supposed to maintain his appearance. Admittedly, the deceased was earning rs.3,647 per month at the time of his death as has been highlighted in para 15 of the award of the Tribunal. The deceased was an employee of Primary Land Mortgage bank. He was supposed to remain out of house in order to discharge his official duty. He was also supposed to maintain his appearance. Therefore, his personal expenses must be more as compared to the other members of the family. Therefore taking personal expenses of the deceased at Rs.1,500 per month and after deducting this amount from the income of the de-ceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2,147 and by ap-plying a multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,12,800, which in my opinion, is a just compensation and i order accordingly. I also award a sum of rs.10,000 by way of funeral and consortium charges. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,22,800 besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 19.10.1993 till payment. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order. The state will be entitled to adjust the amount which is already paid to the appellants-claimants. Appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.