Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 72 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumari v. Krishan Kumar

2001-01-15

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is claimants appeal and has been directed against the award dated 27.3.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, which awarded a sum of Rs. 6 lacs in favour of the claimants besides interest @ 12% per annum from 26.7.1991, i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition, till recovery, by respondent No. 3 and costs which were assessed at Rs. 500/-. It was further ordered by the Tribunal that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with proportionate interest would be paid to the widow namely Smt. Ra-mesh Kumari and the remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs along with interest shall be, distributed amongst the three daughters namely Miss Sanjna, Miss Pankaj and Miss Ruchhi. 2. It may be mentioned here that Miss Sanjna was minor at the time of filing of the claim petition but now she has been married. Be that as it may, the facts of the case are that Suit. Ramesh Kumari (widow), Miss Sanjna, Miss Pankaj and Miss Ruchhi (daughters of deceased Madan Lal) filed claim petition against Krishan Kumar (driver of the offending car), Sangrur Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Sangrur (owner) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs on account of death of Madan Lal besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for damage to the motor cycle. The case pleaded by the claimants is that in the accident which took place on 13.5.1991 at about 5.45 a.m. on the road between Sectors 43 and 44, Chandigarh the deceased was knocked down from his motor cycle by the rash and negligent driving of offending car No. PCC-201 by respondent-driver Krishan Kumar. The said car was owned by respondent No. 2. It is also pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month on average and they were dependent upon him. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 took the stand that no accident took place with the car in question. In the alternative, he pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased who did not abide by the traffic rules and came at once in the crossing. Respondent No. 2 did not deny the accident specifically but pleaded that no accident was caused by respondent No. 1. In the alternative, he pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased who did not abide by the traffic rules and came at once in the crossing. Respondent No. 2 did not deny the accident specifically but pleaded that no accident was caused by respondent No. 1. The respondent-Insurance Company denied its liability and pleaded that at the maximum its liability is to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- only. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal the following issues :- "1. Whether Madan Lal deceased was killed and motor cycle No CHE 12 88 was damaged in the motor vehicle accident occurring on 13.5.1991 due to rash and negligent driving of car No. PCC 201 by Krishan Kumar respondent No. 1 ? OPA. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation if any is the applicants are entitled on the two counts or either of the two counts and if so from whom ?" 5. The parties led evidence in support of their cases and on the conclusion of proceedings issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Issue No. 2 was partly decided in favour of the claimants and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6 lacs by way of compensation to the claimants besides interest @ 12% per annum from 26.7.1991, 6. Aggrieved by the award dated 27.3.1995, the present appeal by the claimants-appellants. 7. I have heard Mr. Chetan Mittal, Advocate on behalf of the appellants, Mr. N.K, Khosia, Advocate on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed before me the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 and I shall confine my discussion on this issue only. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce paras No. 15 to 18 of the award of the Tribunal which read as follows :- " 15. Relationship of the claimants with the deceased was not specifically denied by the respondents in their respective replies; nor was the evidence of Ramesh Kumari as AW4 in this regard questioned. Relationship of the claimants with the deceased was not specifically denied by the respondents in their respective replies; nor was the evidence of Ramesh Kumari as AW4 in this regard questioned. She deposed that Madan Lal was her husband and three daughters, namely, Sanjna, Pankaj and Ruchhi were born to her from his wedlock and gave their date of birth as 24.1.1974; 1.2.1977 and 22.1.1981 respectively. She gave her own age as 40 years and of her husband about 42/43 years at the time of his death. She also deposed that he was employed as Assistant Supervisor (Mechanical) in Pfizer Limited in Industrial Area, Chandigarh, drawing Rs. 7,000/-per month as salary before his death; and was Graduate and after graduation had obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engg. and was maintaining her and the children from his income. It was also deposed by her that all the three children are school going and that she is unemployed. It was also stated by her that the age of his retirement was 60 years and that during the period of his treatment in the PGI till his death on 24.6.1991 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent. Her testimony with regard to the service of the deceased and his income is corroborated by the testimony of PW1 Jagdish Ram, Time Keeper of Pfizer Limited. It was deposed by this witness on the basis of the record that Madan Lal was employed as Mechanic in Pfizer Limited, 173, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. He brought his income statement for the year, 1990-91 showing that the gross salary paid to him during the year was 85,065/-; that Ex. A1 is the income statement and also brought the income statement for the next year upto the date of his death, copy of which is Ex.A2. It was also stated by him that Madan Lal was qualified as 1st Class Boiler Attendant. His evidence was not questioned at all in cross-examination. 16. A reference to the income statement Ex.A1 for the year, 1990-91 would show that the annual income of Rs. 85,065/- from salary was inclusive of a sum of Rs. 3,415/- as House Rent Allowance; and Rs. 1841/- education allowance; and a sum of Rs. 12,9507- was deducted as income tax at source after allowing him rebate admissible under the Income Tax Act on account of contribution to the public provident fund. 17. 85,065/- from salary was inclusive of a sum of Rs. 3,415/- as House Rent Allowance; and Rs. 1841/- education allowance; and a sum of Rs. 12,9507- was deducted as income tax at source after allowing him rebate admissible under the Income Tax Act on account of contribution to the public provident fund. 17. Thus allowing for the expenses expected to be incurred by the deceased for his own maintenance, he may reasonably, therefore, be taken to be sparing atleast Rs. 4,500/- per month for the maintenance of his widow and three minor children and for his estate. The claimants have, therefore, to be compensated for the said loss which comes to Rs. 54,000/- per annum on the average. 18. The aforesaid loss has to be capitalized by applying normal multiplier of 16 having regard to the fact and circumstance that he was aged 43 years at the time of his death; and the age of his minor children and young widow. So computed it conies to Rs. 8,64,000/- but the multiplier has to be toned down because the annual interest even at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount will be far in excess of the loss suffered by the claimants. The multiplier of 11 would in my view reflect the just and reasonable amount of compensation to the petitioners and so computed the compensation payable to the petitioners, therefore, comes to Rs. 5,94,000/- which can be squared to round figure of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation on which interest at the rate of 12% per annum may reasonably be allowed to the petitioners from 26.7.1991, the date of their claim petition, till recovery. Liability for the payment of the said amount of compensation is of respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, but the same being covered by the policy of insurance issued by respondent No. 3, it has to be met by the insurer, in view of the unrebutted evidence of Krishan Kumar of his having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident in question." 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal fell in error while calculating the compensation for the claimants. It has mainly relied upon the interest theory which is totally out dated. He submitted that it is proved on the record that the deceased was earning Rs. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal fell in error while calculating the compensation for the claimants. It has mainly relied upon the interest theory which is totally out dated. He submitted that it is proved on the record that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and after deducting his personal expenses the annual dependency of the claimants should be calculated Rs. 7,200/- and in this case multiplier of 16 years ought to have been applied. In this manner the compensation ought to have been assessed. 10. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it is the case of the claimants themselves that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, still the dependency of the claimants cannot be more than Rs. 6,000/- per month and in this case the multiplier of 11 years should have been applied keeping in view the uncertainties of life. Therefore, the compensation has already been awarded to the claimants on the higher side. 11. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. In para No. 6 of the claim petition the claimants themselves have alleged that the average monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000/- per month including bonus etc. Claimant Ramesh Ku-mari while appearing in the witness-box as AW4 stated that her husband was employed as Assistant Supervisor (Mechanical) in Pfizer Limited in Industrial Area, Chandigarh. He was drawing Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary before his death. She further deposed that he was a graduate and after graduation had got diploma in Mechanical Engineering and was maintaining her and the children with that income. She also deposed that she was married to Madan Lal in 1971 and the age of retirement of the deceased was 60 years. According to her, her husband remained under treatment in PGI till his death which occurred on 24.6.1991 and she had to spend about Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants also invited my attention to the documentary evidence contained in Exs.A1 and A2. According to her, her husband remained under treatment in PGI till his death which occurred on 24.6.1991 and she had to spend about Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants also invited my attention to the documentary evidence contained in Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the salary statement of the deceased which shows that w.e.f. 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991 the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 85,065/-. As per Ex.A2, the total salary received by the deceased w.e.f. 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 comes to Rs. 27,764/-. By mainly relying upon Ex.A1 the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that it is proved on the record that the income of the deceased was Rs. 9,000/- per month approximately and the oral statement of Smt. Ramesh Kumari has to be looked into in the light of documentary evidence. 13. If the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants for the time being is taken as correct, still the appellants will not be able to advance their case further. I take it that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was the only earning member in the family. He used to go to his office. He used to keep his appearance in the public and before his colleagues. In these circumstances, the expenses of the deceased must be more as compared to the expenses of his wife and children. After deducting the personal expenses of the deceased I calculate the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 72,000/-. 14. Now the point which survives for determination is what should be the multiplier in this case. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that multiplier of 11 years applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The counsel submitted that the deceased was to serve upto the age of 60 years and at the time of his death he was 43. Since he was to serve for 17 years more, therefore, multiplier of 16 years ought to have been applied. I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The life of a human being is full of uncertainties. In this case the deceased was 43 years of age. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 years and in my opinion it cannot be said that it is on the lower side. The life of a human being is full of uncertainties. In this case the deceased was 43 years of age. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 years and in my opinion it cannot be said that it is on the lower side. According to the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Accident Act the Tribunal is supposed to award just compensation. By applying the multiplier of 11 years the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 7,92,000/-. 15. Admittedly, the accident took place on 13.5.1991. The deceased remained admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh and died on 24.6.1991. Though there is no evidence led by the claimants in this regard, but this court can always take a judicial notice that during the period when the deceased was under treatment some amount must have been spent by the claimants towards the medical expenses and diet etc. of the deceased. Thus, I am inclined to add Rs. 8,000/- in the amount of compensation of Rs. 7,92,000/- besides Rs. 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as consortium, which is admissible under the law. Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 8,10,000/-, besides interest @ 9% p.a., which shall be calculated on the enhanced amount of compensation only, 16. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 1 lac shall be paid to Smt. Ramesh Kumari and the remaining compensation inclusive of interest shall be paid in equal shares to the three daughters i.e. appellants No. 2 to 4. The amount falling to the share of the minors shall be deposited in a scheduled bank in the shape of FDR and shall remain deposited as such till the minors attained the age of majority. No order as to costs. 17. Appeal partly allowed.