Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 905 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. Lac. Gopal Bali

2003-07-08

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. - This appeal has been filed by the parents of deceased Satwinder Singh, who was run over and killed on 8.9.1998 by an Air Force vehicle bearing No. BA No. 78E 4104 E being driven by respondent No. 1 Lac. Gopal Bali and owned by the Union of India. Sarbjit Kuar (Widow) had filed a claim petition on her behalf as well as on behalf of the minor son of the deceased Dilpreet Singh, making the parents of the deceased namely, Swaran Singh and Kamaljit Kaur, as respondents. The plea of the claimants was that Satwinder Singh had been earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the repair of scooters etc. and after keeping Rs. 1000/- for his personal expenses had been giving a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to his wife and as such compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- was awardable on account of his death. 2. The respondents in their reply controverted the claim, on which the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether petitioners are LRs of Satwinder Singh @ Laddu ? OPP. 2. Whether deceased died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Air Force Vehicle Make KRAZ BA No. 78E-4104E by respondent Lac. Gopal Bali No. 723993-T, Unit No. IGW-77AF as pleaded in para No. 24 of the petition ? OPP. 3. Whether petition is bad for mis-joinder of respdt. No. 2 ? OPR. 4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of Insurance co. with which Scooter driver by the respondent was insured ? OPR 5. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP. 6. Relief. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that Sarbjit Kaur and Dilpreet Singh, claimants and Swaran Singh and Kamaljit Kaur, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, were the legal heirs of the deceased. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal observed as under :- "Fact remains that FIR was written immediately after the occurrence against Gopal Bali, respondent No. 1. From the papers placed on the file, it also comes out that even Air Force Authorities had also given sanction for prosecution of Gopal Bali by criminal court. In the case of trial before the criminal courts, prosecution case has to be proved beyond doubt whereas these are proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where standard of proof required is not to that extent. In the case of trial before the criminal courts, prosecution case has to be proved beyond doubt whereas these are proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where standard of proof required is not to that extent. The fact that FIR had been registered immediately after the occurrence against respondent No. 1 and further that the scooter had been dragged to a distance of 8/9 feet by the vehicle, will show that offending vehicle had come at a high speed. If it had been at slow speed, then it could not have dragged the scooter. Case of the petitioners is supported by AW2 Varinder Singh so far as occurrence is concerned. Deceased was going on scooter whereas respondent No. 1 was driving a heavy vehicle i.e. Air Force Truck. It was his duty to remain conscious and careful so as to avoid any accident. If respondent No. 1 had been acquitted and there had been some negligence on the part of Satwinder Singh, deceased, for that some adjustment in the compensation to be awarded can be made. The conclusion to be arrived at is that Satwinder Singh, deceased died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Air Force Vehicle Make KRAZ BA No. 723993-T Unit No. 1 CW-77 AF. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioners against the contesting respondents." 3. The Tribunal then went into issue No. 5 and concluded that as there was no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, it had to be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd as the personal expenses that he (the deceased) might be spending on himself, the Tribunal assessed the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 24,600/- and by applying a multiplier of 16 (as the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death), assessed the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 3,84,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 16,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium, making a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, after making adjustment of 1/4th of the amount towards the contributory negligence of the deceased, Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation, which was apportioned as under :- Sarabjit Kaur, widow Rs. 1,00,000/- Dilpreet Singh, son Rs. 1,00,000/- Kamaljit Kaur, mother Rs. 75,000/- Swaran Singh, father Rs. 25,000/- Respondent Nos. 4,00,000/-. However, after making adjustment of 1/4th of the amount towards the contributory negligence of the deceased, Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation, which was apportioned as under :- Sarabjit Kaur, widow Rs. 1,00,000/- Dilpreet Singh, son Rs. 1,00,000/- Kamaljit Kaur, mother Rs. 75,000/- Swaran Singh, father Rs. 25,000/- Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the above compensation. 4. Sarabjit Kaur and Dilpreet Singh have chosen not to file any appeal against the award of the Tribunal. The present appeal has, however, been filed by the parents of the deceased seeking an enhancement of compensation. Alongwith the appeal, an application for additional evidence has been filed to show that Satwinder Singh had an agency for sale of two wheelers and that his wife had, in the meanwhile, returned to her parents home giving up all her claims qua his property etc. 5. The respondents have been served but they have not put in appearance. 6. Ms. Puneet Sethi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has argued that from the documents now sought to be produced by way of the application for additional evidence, it was clear that Satwinder Singh had been running a agency for the sale of two wheelers and as such, the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month was woefully inadequate. He has also pointed out that in the light of the fact that a positive finding had been recorded by the Tribunal that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver, Lac. Gopal Bali, the deduction of 1/4th on the ground that the aforesaid Airman (driver of Air Force vehicle) had been acquitted by the trial Court in the Criminal case was wholly unjustified. He has also urged that in any case, the entire compensation amount ought to be given to the parents of the deceased in the light of the fact that the wife of the deceased had deserted her matrimonial home and had returned to her parents. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record. 8. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record. 8. I am of the opinion that the documents now put on record by way of the application for appreciation do not advance the appellants claim as there is no evidence to show that the aforesaid documents had any connection with the affairs of the deceased. I am, however, clearly of the opinion that in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence, the deduction of 1/4th from the compensation determined by the Tribunal was not justified. The relevant extract of the award of the Tribunal has been reproduced above. A bare reading of the same would show that the Tribunal had recorded a positive finding that it was Gopal Bali (respondent No. 1), who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had collided with the scooter and had dragged it to some distance. To my mind, the mere fact that Gopal Bali had been acquitted in the criminal case would not automatically mean that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Satwinder Singh as well. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the entire compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was due to the claimants. 9. The question now arises is as to the apportionment of the compensation in the light of the fact that no appeal has been filed by Sarabjit Kaur and Dilpreet Singh (widow and minor son of the deceased). 10. Ms. Sethi has put on record an agreement between Sarabjit Kaur and her in-laws, which reveals that Sarabjit Kaur was no longer interested in pursuing her claim with regard to her husbands death. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- which would fall due to the legal heirs of the deceased on account of this judgment should be apportioned as follows :- Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to Dilpreet Singh Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the appellants. 11. It is also directed that the amount falling to the share of Dilpreet Singh would be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till the date he attains majority but his mother Sarabjit Kaur would be at liberty to withdraw the interest on that amount for his maintenance. The compensation amount shall be paid forthwith. 11. It is also directed that the amount falling to the share of Dilpreet Singh would be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till the date he attains majority but his mother Sarabjit Kaur would be at liberty to withdraw the interest on that amount for his maintenance. The compensation amount shall be paid forthwith. The parties shall also have interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhance amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realisation. A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondents free of cost under registered cover. Order accordingly.