Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1221 (PNJ)

Udha Ram v. Jaya Sharma

2005-11-30

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Challenge in the appeal as well as in the Cross Objections is to the award dated 10.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) whereby the claimant has been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum for death of her daughter Shaveta in road accident and liability to make the payment of compensation has been imposed upon Udha Ram appellant, who is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle,. i.e., truck bearing No. MP-23-D-2404, are that on 5.11.1992 at about 5.30 P.M., Shaveta a young girl of 17 years - was crushed under the said vehicle while she was going on her Moped bearing No. CH-01-F-8683 from her house in Sector 7, Panchkula towards Section 18, Panchkula. Her mother Smt. Jaya Sharma filed a claim petition alleging therein that Shaveta was a brilliant student of 10+2 and she was earning Rs. 2,500/-month from private tuition in Science, Mathematics and other subjects. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/- was claimed on account of transportation of the dead body. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the truck as well as the Insurance Company. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent-Udha Ram driver of truck No. MP-23-D-2404?....OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?....OPP 3. Whether the respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation on the pleas taken in the written statement?....OPR 4. Relief. The Tribunal held that the accident had resulted owing to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Udha Ram appellant. The dependency of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 500/- per month and by applying multiplier of 16, the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 96,000/-. Besides this, Rs. 1,000/- were awarded on account of transportation charges and Rs. 3,000/- were awarded as funeral expenses. In this way, the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 12% interest. 500/- per month and by applying multiplier of 16, the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 96,000/-. Besides this, Rs. 1,000/- were awarded on account of transportation charges and Rs. 3,000/- were awarded as funeral expenses. In this way, the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 12% interest. With regard to the liability to pay the compensation, it was held by the Tribunal that Udha Ram, owner/driver of the truck in question, was not holding a valid driving licence. Thus, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability and instead the owner of the truck was held liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimant. Now Udha Ram has filed the appeal wherein challenge has been made to the award of the Tribunal. Smt. Jaya Sharma claimant has filed the cross-objections for upward revision of the amount of compensation. 3 It has been contended by Mr. B.R.Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly dependency of the mother on her young daughter of 17 years, when her husband was alive and Smt. Jaya Sharma claimant could not be dependent on the deceased by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, it has not been proved by leading any cogent evidence that Shaveta deceased was earning by doing tuition work. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal erred in determining the dependency of Smt. Jaya Sharma claimant on the deceased. 4. Another contention raised by Mr. Gupta is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently and that Udha Ram appellant was holding a fake driving licence. It has been contended that the two witnesses examined by the Insurance Company were its employees and, thus, were interested witness. No independent witness from the office of Licensing Authority has been examined to prove the assertions of the Insurance Company that the driving licence adduced on record by Udha Ram appellant was fake. Thus, it has been contended that the Tribunal wrongly absolved the Insurance Company of its liability to make the payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant. 5. Mr. Thus, it has been contended that the Tribunal wrongly absolved the Insurance Company of its liability to make the payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant. 5. Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondent No. 1, has contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly dependency of Smt. Jaya Sharma, mother of Shaveta deceased, at a meagre sum of Rs. 500/- when it has been proved that the deceased was earning about Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- by engaging herself in tuition work. Thus, merely on conjectures and surmises it has been held by the Tribunal that the value of her services on the petitioner was to the extent of Rs. 500/- and in this way the Tribunal reduced the income of the deceased from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs500/- per month arbitrarily. Mr. Munishwar Puri contends that the amount of compensation should be suitably enhanced. Another contention raised by Mr. Munishwar Puri is that the Tribunal erred in absolving the Insurance Company of its liability to make the payment of compensation to the claimant. 6. The contentions raised by Mr. B.R.Gupta and Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondent No. 1 respectively, have vehemently been controverted by Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company It has been contended by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that it has amply been proved on record that Udha Ram, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, was holding a fake driving licence and in this view of the matter no liability to make the payment of compensation to the claimant can be affixed on the Insurance Company. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. 8. First of all I shall deal with the contentions raised by Mr. B.R.Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Smt. Jaya Sharma was not dependent on the deceased as her husband was not alive at the time of the accident is concerned, there does not seem to be any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel. B.R.Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Smt. Jaya Sharma was not dependent on the deceased as her husband was not alive at the time of the accident is concerned, there does not seem to be any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel. Even if it is found that Shaveta - a young daughter of the claimant - was not doing any tuition work, it cannot be said that she was not providing any services to her mother and other family members. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel that the mother was not dependent upon her daughter is without any force. 9. The next contention of Mr. Gupta that the driver of the truck was not at fault in causing the accident in question is also without any merit. Balwinder Nath Sharma (PW2), who is an independent witness and was not a stranger to the family of the deceased in any manner, stated that he had witnessed the occurrence. He stated that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently at a reckless speed. On the same lines is the statement of Jagdish Kant, who is the author of the FIR. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. No witness deposed in favour of the driver of the truck. In this view of the matter, it does not lie in the mouth for the appellant that the appellant was not at fault in causing the accident in question. 10. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly on the statements of the interest witnesses adduced by the Insurance Company has held that the driving licence of the appellant was fake. 11. There is merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal has given his finding merely on the statements of Chand Parkash Gupta (RW1) and Jagdish Chand (RW2), who are employees of the Insurance Company No employee from the office of the Licensing Authority has been examined to prove that Udha Ram was holding a fake driving licence. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that Udha Ram appellant was holding a fake driving licence is set aside. 12. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that Udha Ram appellant was holding a fake driving licence is set aside. 12. While dealing with the Cross Objections filed on behalf of claimant-respondent No. 1 for enhancement of the amount of compensation, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal wrongly erred in assessing the services rendered by Shaveta deceased to her mother Smt. Jaya Sharma at a meager amount of Rs. 500/- per month. Smt. Jaya Sharma, respondent No. 1, mother of the deceased has stated that she was earning about Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 3,000/- by doing tuition work. There is no rebuttal to the statement made by Smt. Jaya Sharma that her daughter Shaveta was a brilliant student studying in 10+2 class and 17 years old at the time of her death. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, it can very well be assessed that being a brilliant 10+2 student Shaveta might be doing some tuition work in the subjects of Mathematics and Science as per the statement of Smt. Jai Sharma. In this way the assessment of her services at Rs. 500/- per month only by the Tribunal is at a very lower level. There is no denial to the fact that with the death of Shaveta, the family has lost a daughter who had a promising career. In view of this, I assess her services to her mother, i.e., the claimant-respondent No. 1, at Rs. 1,000/-per month or Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal while calculating the compensation to be paid to respondent No. 1. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,92,000/-. Besides this, Rs. 3,000/- are awarded as funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000/- as transportation charges of the dead body. I also award another sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,01,000/-. The claimant is also granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. The amount already paid shall be deducted. The cross-objections stand allowed as indicated above.