Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1316 (PNJ)

Ratna Chaudhuri v. State Of Haryana

2005-12-22

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 8.11.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the parents of Aurobindo Chaudhuri, who died in a road accident on 21.10.1994. 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 21.10.1994 at about 3.30 P.M. deceased Aurobindo Chaudhuri, who was a Third Year M.B.A. student, along with one Prateesh Barua was going on a moped, being driven by the latter, to Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Begumpur Khatola in order to deliver a lecture. As they were taking a turn towards the right side in order to go to village Begumpur Khatola, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-36-5867, being driven by Jagdish Chand, respondent No. 2, came from the opposite direction and struck against the moped. Both Pratesh Barua and Aurobindo Chaudhuri, who were riding the moped, received grievous injuries. Aurobindo Chaudhuri succumbed to the injuries while he was being shifted to General Hospital, Gorgaon. The matter was reported to the police and case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, against the driver of the Haryana Roadways Bus on the statement made by Prateesh Barua injured. 3. The parents of deceased Aurobindo Chaudhuri filed claim petition and they claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son. According to the claimants, Aurobindo Chaudhuri would have been earning Rs. 10,000/- as salary plus perks per month as he had got a brilliant academic career. Besides his studies he was also working as Teaching Assistant and used to deliver lectures to students of Rural Management Programme, at the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, New Delhi (for short the Institute) and was getting Rs. 300/- per lecture of 90-minutes. They also claimed Rs. 5,000/- having been spent on last rights of their son. 4. On notice having been issued to the respondents. Jagdish Chand driver (respondent No. 2) did not contest the claim petition. However, he put in appearance by default on behalf of the State of Haryana (respondent No. 1) by appearing as R.W.1. They also claimed Rs. 5,000/- having been spent on last rights of their son. 4. On notice having been issued to the respondents. Jagdish Chand driver (respondent No. 2) did not contest the claim petition. However, he put in appearance by default on behalf of the State of Haryana (respondent No. 1) by appearing as R.W.1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Haryana, the primary ground to contest the claim has been taken that Aurobindo Chaudhari was knocked down by an unknown truck and not by the Haryana Roadways Bus. It has been contended that the driver and the conductor had only taken both the injured to the Hospital in the bus in question. 5. After examining the evidence adduced on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence and after assessing the prospective earning of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal calculated the total amount of compensation as Rs. 7,68,000/- plus Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation and funeral charges. By applying one-half cut in respect of contributory negligence, a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- was awarded to the claimants vide award dated 8.11.1996 passed by the Tribunal. Besides the above, the Tribunal awarded costs of the litigation to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. Now, Mrs. Ratna Chaudhury, mother of the deceased has filed the present appeal to challenge the award of the Tribunal. 6. Two pronged attack has been made by Mr. J.V. Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant, to the award of the Tribunal. Firstly, it has been contended that the Tribunal had erred in holding that it was a case of contributory negligence. The counsel contends that even in the written statement field on behalf of the State of Haryana, it has not been pleaded that the driver of the moped was at fault in causing the accident in question and only plea taken on behalf of the State of Haryana is that the accident had been caused by some speeding truck and not by the Haryana Roadways Bus. Thus, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is based on surmises and conjectures. Secondly, it has been contended that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the prospective monthly earning of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- without taking into consideration his brilliant academic career and by even ignoring the statement of Mr. S.N. Chhibar, Administrator of the Institute to the effect that generally the Institute provides jobs at the salary of about Rs. 10,000/- per month after completion of the M.B.A. Course. 7. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant have vehemently been controverted by Mr. S.K. Hooda, learned Senior D.A.G. Haryana. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the case file, I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 9. So far as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, in the written statement filed by the State of Haryana there is nowhere pleaded that the accident in question had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the moped. The only plea taken on behalf of the State of Haryana is that the accident had been caused by some speeding truck and the driver and the conductor of the bus in question had only transported the injured to the Hospital. However, in the statement of Prateesh Barua (PW-5), who is also the author of the F.I.R. and was driving the moped, it has come that it was the Haryana Roadways bus which had hit the moped. Jagdish Chand, driver of the Haryana Roadways bus (respondent No. 2), did not even contest the claim petition, though he preferred to put in appearance by default by appearing as a witness on behalf of the State of Haryana. In view of the oral evidence adduced on record. I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in making it a case of contributory negligence. Rather in view of the clear-cut statement of Prateesh Baura (PW-5), it is held that it is not a case of contributory evidence but the oral and the circumstantial evidence pin-points the accusing finger towards the rash and negligent driving of the Haryana Roadways bus in question by Jagdish Chand (respondent No. 2). Rather in view of the clear-cut statement of Prateesh Baura (PW-5), it is held that it is not a case of contributory evidence but the oral and the circumstantial evidence pin-points the accusing finger towards the rash and negligent driving of the Haryana Roadways bus in question by Jagdish Chand (respondent No. 2). In this regard I find support from the dictum of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Ors. . Thus, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence is, accordingly, rejected. 10. So far as the prospective monthly earning of the Aurobindo Chaudhuri deceased is concerned, there is no dispute to the fact that he had a brilliant academic career. The claimants had tendered copies (Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-7) of the academic record of the deceased with regard to his brilliant academic career. He was even awarded a Certificate of Honour. He was a third year student of M.B.A. Course. It has even come in the statement of Mr. S.N. Chhibar, administrator of the Institute, that the deceased was a third year student of the M.B.A. Course and had a brilliant career and generally the Institute provides jobs at the salary of about Rs. 10,000/- per month after completion of the M.B.A. Course. In view of this evidence adduced on record on behalf of the claimants, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the prospective monthly earning of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. Even if the deceased would not have been able to get a job earning Rs. 10,000/- a month after the completion of his M.B.A. Course, he would easily have got the job with a salary of Rs. 8,000/-. If one-third is deducted as personal expenses of the deceased then he could easily pay Rs. 5,350/- per month or Rs. 64,200/- per annum to his parents. The deceased was 20 years of age at the time of his death. As per second schedule annexed to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, a multiplier of 16 is to be applied in the present case. Thus, the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants comes to Rs. 10,27,200/-. The claimants are also entitled to be granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 10,37,000/-. Thus, the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants comes to Rs. 10,27,200/-. The claimants are also entitled to be granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 10,37,000/-. Besides this, I grant interest at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent per annum on the whole amount of compensation with effect from the date of claim petition till realization. The respondents are jointly and severally held for the payment of compensation to the appellant. 11. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed. The State of Haryana is directed to make the payment of compensation with interest to the appellant-claimants within a period of three months from today.