Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1266 (PNJ)

Harinder Kaur Dhillon v. State Of Haryana

2005-12-13

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The appellants who are the widow and two minor sons of the deceased Surinder Singh Dhillon, have filed the present appeal against the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, karnal dated 10.12.1993 by which a compensation of Rs.4,04,636 was awarded to them. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 19.10.1991, Surinder Singh Dhillon, tirath Ram along with Balbir Kaur and other family members were going from ambala to Delhi in car No. DIA 1807. At about 5 p. m. when the car reached near gharaunda, a bus belonging to Haryana roadways bearing No. HNE 1982 came from opposite direction, i. e. , from Delhi side, which was being driven by Hoshiar singh, struck against the car. It is alleged that the bus was being driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the accident Surinder Singh dhillon and Tirath Ram died whereas Balbir kaur received injuries. Ram Kumar, pw 7, lodged F. I. R. No.329, Exh. P8, which was recorded at Police Station, gharaunda and a case was registered against the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus, namely, Hoshiar Singh. The parents of the deceased Surinder Singh Dhillon, namely, balbir Kaur and Kehar Singh filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,000 (sic rs.10,00,000) as compensation. A separate claim petition was filed by the widow and the two minor sons of Surinder Singh dhillon claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000 as compensation on account of the death of Surinder Singh Dhillon. The Motor accidents Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that surinder Singh Dhillon died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of haryana Roadways bus and awarded compensation of Rs.4,04,636 in favour of the claimants, i. e. , the widow and two minor sons. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of rs.50,000 in favour of Balbir Kaur and kehar Singh, parents of the deceased Surinder Singh Dhillon. 3. Mr. C. B. Goel, counsel for the widow and two minor children of the deceased surinder Singh Dhillon, has assailed the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the deceased was working as an Inspector in the Central Excise and Customs, Collectorate, ahmedabad and was drawing a salary of Rs.3,942 per month. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the deceased was working as an Inspector in the Central Excise and Customs, Collectorate, ahmedabad and was drawing a salary of Rs.3,942 per month. The salary certificate, Exh. P52, has been placed on record which has duly been issued by the chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad. It has further been averred that the deceased was 37 years of age. Learned counsel has argued that firstly, the Tribunal gravely erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from total salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. It is submitted that as the deceased had a large family to support, i. e. , aged father and mother, wife and two minor children, therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd amount from the total salary for personal expenses is on the higher side. Learned counsel has submitted that the deduction on account of personal expenses should have been based on unit system, i. e. , two units for each adult and one unit for each of the minor children. 4. The above submission of the counsel for the appellants is well merited. As the deceased had a large family to support, therefore, his family circumstances itself did not allow him to spend 1/3rd of his salary on himself. If the unit system is applied then it would be seen that there were four adults and two minor children, i. e. , 10 units in all. As the salary of the deceased was rs.3,942 per month, therefore, each unit would be entitled to Rs.394 per month. The deceased being an adult was, entitled to two units and was, therefore, spending a sum of Rs.788 per month on himself. If this amount is deducted from the monthly salary then the dependency of the family would come to Rs.3,154 per month which comes to Rs.37,848 per annum. As the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, as per the Second schedule attached to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a multiplier of 16 would have to be applied and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6,05,568 as compensation. Thus, the findings of the tribunal with regard to deduction of 1/3rd amount from the total salary as personal expenses is set aside in view of the reasons indicated above. 5. It has next been contended by Mr. Thus, the findings of the tribunal with regard to deduction of 1/3rd amount from the total salary as personal expenses is set aside in view of the reasons indicated above. 5. It has next been contended by Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants, that no amount of compensation has been awarded to the claimants on account of loss of future prospects. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was a young man of 37 years of age and was working as an inspector in the Central Excise and Customs department. It is submitted that, had the deceased rendered full service in the central Excise and Customs Department then he would have gone up to the rank of at least Assistant Collector if not Collector. It is further submitted that the retirement age of the deceased was 60 years and, therefore, the deceased still had 23 years of service left. The learned counsel has contended that in view of the above the tribunal ought to have awarded another sum of Rs.1,00,000 for future prospects of the deceased. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment in Sarla Dixit V/s. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC ). 6. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that the deceased was relatively young being 37 years of age only at the time of his death. He still had 23 years of service left and, therefore, would obviously have risen to higher post. Thus, keeping in view the future prospects of the deceased, I award another sum of rs.50,000 for future prospects. I also award a sum of Rs.5,000 for loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.10,000 for funeral expenses. 7. Mr. C. B. Goel, the learned counsel for the appellants, has also submitted that both the parents of the deceased have died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, the entire compensation be given to the present appellants. This fact has not been controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondents and, hence, this prayer is accepted. 8. The net result of the above discussion is that the appellants are held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6,70,568. They are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. 8. The net result of the above discussion is that the appellants are held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6,70,568. They are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The amount already paid to the claimants as well as the amount paid to Balbir Kaur and kehar Singh, who are the parents of the deceased Surinder Singh Dhillon shall be deducted while paying the enhanced compensation. 9. The judgment of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Karnal dated 10.12.1993 is modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.