Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 402 (PNJ)

N. Leelawati (Mrs. ) v. Amar Singh

2005-03-18

TAPEN SEN

body2005
Judgment Tapen Sen, J. 1. This appeal arises out of Award dated 16.1.1988 passed by Mr. S.S.Chahal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala in MACT Case No. 22 of 3.4.1987. The Claimant-Appellant No. 1 (Mrs. N. Leelawati) is the widow, the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters and the Appellant No. 4 is the son of the deceased. 2. On 22.3.1987, K. Thankappan (hereinafter referred to for the sake brevity as the deceased), who is the husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellants No. 2 to 4 was travelling on his scooter on the Chandigarh-Rajpura road. As he crossed the bus stop in village Chhat, a truck coming from the side of Rajpura bearing No. HYA-3997 which was being driven by Respondent No. 2 herein hit his scooter, as a result of which the deceased fell down and received injuries. He was removed to the Command Hospital at Chandigarh in an injured condition. From the Command Hospital, Chandigarh he was then shifted to the PGI, Chandigarh where he died. 3. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, Respondent No. 2 is the driver while Respondent No. 3 is the New India Assurance Company Limited, Panchkula. The deceased was 41 years at the time of h is accident. As per the Claimants, he was getting a salary o f Rs. 2067.40 paise. On account of the death of the deceased, the Claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation. 4. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim on the grounds that the accident never occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck and that the truck was being driven at a very slow speed on the left side and that no accident took place while the truck was being driven by him and as such the Claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was, "whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased ?" This issue was answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of the Claimants. 6. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was, "whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased ?" This issue was answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of the Claimants. 6. Issue No. 2 was, "whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYA-3997 driven by Raunki Ram ?" This issue was also decided in the affirmative holding that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Raunki Ram. 7. Issue No. 3 was, "If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so how much and from whom?" 8. This is the crucial issue and on the basis of reasonings given on the basis of the statement of one Devindra Sharma, Pilot Officer (AW2), learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion, that according to the records, the deceased was getting Rs. 1379/- P.M. as salary as against the claim of Appellants to the effect that he was drawing Rs. 2,100/- p.m. 9. Having held so, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased "must be" spending Rs. 379/- P.M. on himself. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the monthly dependency carne to Rs. 1,000/- and the annual dependency to Rs. 12,000/-. 10. Having held the annual dependency to Rs. 1,200/-, the Tribunal then took note of the age of the deceased as being 41 years and applying the multiplier of 18, it awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- (12,000 x 18 = 2,16,000/-). 11. Having thus awarded a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- in all, the Tribunal made the said amount payable by all the Respondents. 12. While calculating, the Tribunal bifurcated the aforementioned amount in the following manners: (a) For Appellant No. 1 = (Mrs. N. Leelawati) (b) For Appellant No. 2 = (Miss Rajeshri) (c) For Appellant No. 3 = (Miss Jaishri) (d) For Appellant No. 4 = (Master Shri Krishna Prasad) It was also held that the Claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the awarded amount. 13. 13. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the Award on various grounds including that the Tribunal did not take into consideration that the deceased, at the time of his death, was actually getting Rs. 1,379/- towards salary plus local allowances to the extent of Rs. 170/- plus Rs. 60/- as Childrens education allowance. The total thereof every month comes to Rs. 1609/-. He also stated that the deceased was entitled to a sum of Rs. 583/- P.M. towards other allowances. To the extent of Rs. 583/-, which though was not being actually paid, the same was nevertheless being spent by the Government as the deceased was in defence services and these included free accommodation, free food, free clothing, and free canteen facilities. It was also stated that the aforementioned facts had been brought to the notice of the Tribunal vide Ex.A1, which was proved by Devindra Sharma, Pilot Officer (AW2). The learned Counsel further submits that in fact Appellant No. 1 (AW1) also stated that the deceased was getting Rs. 2,100/-P.M. in cash and he used to send a sum of Rs. 1,500/-p.m. for his family. 14. There is force in what the learned Counsel has submitted. The Tribunal has taken note of the salary of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 1,379/- p.m. but it seems to have totally ignored the fact that the deceased was in the defence service where, it is common knowledge, that persons living within the MESS" are given facilities, such as free accommodation and ration etc. In this context, it would therefore be relevant to quote the statement of Devindra Sharma, Pilot Officer, Chandigarh (AW2) in verbatim which reads thus: "Mr. K. Thankappan was employed in the Air force as Sargent. He died in a motor vehicle accident in 1987. I have brought the record relating to his salary which he was getting from the Air Force Authority. According to this record, he was getting Rs. 1,379/- p.m. as salary. In addition to this salary he was earning Rs. 170/- p.m. as local allowances and Rs. 60/- as children education allowance. Ex.A1 is the copy of the particulars of the salary. He was having free accommodation and free ration. (under lining by the Court). xxxxxxx He was not getting any Scooter allowance. The particulars mentioned above relates to his last pay drawn. 170/- p.m. as local allowances and Rs. 60/- as children education allowance. Ex.A1 is the copy of the particulars of the salary. He was having free accommodation and free ration. (under lining by the Court). xxxxxxx He was not getting any Scooter allowance. The particulars mentioned above relates to his last pay drawn. I cannot say how much pension widow of K. Thankappan will get. The date of birth of K. Thankappan was 24th June, 1944." Thus from the perusal of the aforementioned statement, it is evident that besides Rs. 1,379/- p.m. as salary, the deceased was getting Rs. 170/- as local allowances plus Rs. 60/- as Childrens education allowance. This amount comes to Rs. 230/- and when added to Rs. 1,379/-, the same totals to Rs. 1,609/-." 15. It is also seen from the records of the case that a pay certificate was also brought on record vide Ex.A1. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the deceased was a "living in member" of SNCOs Mess. Ex.A1 further points out that the local allowance to the extent of Rs. 170/- was actually being paid. However, a sum of Rs. 583/- has also been mentioned as being allowance towards ration money, C ILQ, Conservancy charges and conveyance allowance. This amount of Rs. 583/- as per the own statement of Appellant No. 1 read with Ex.A1 was not actually being paid but nevertheless the deceased, being an in house member of a Mess, was entitled to the same. This Court therefore discards the sum of Rs. 583/- but includes the following amount as the actual payments which the deceased used to receive and they are: (a) Salary . - Rs. 1,379/- (b) Local Allowance - Rs. 170/- (c) Children Education Allowance - Rs. 60/- Total = Rs. 1,609/-Thus the findings of the Tribunal to the extent that the salary of the deceased was only Rs. 1,379/- appears to be incorrect and according to this Court the salary of the deceased should have been taken as Rs. 1,609/- p.m, although according to the learned counsel, the monthly dependency should have been only Rs. 1,500/- p.m. To that extent the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. 16. Learned counsel further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Dixit and Anr. 1,609/- p.m, although according to the learned counsel, the monthly dependency should have been only Rs. 1,500/- p.m. To that extent the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. 16. Learned counsel further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors., (2004) A.C.C. 396 (S.C.), the future prospects of advancement in life and career has not been taken into consideration, According to him, these should have been taken by adding the salary drawn at the time of death plus the notional salary that the deceased would have drawn at the time of his superannuation and then the total sums should have been added and then divided by two to reach to a figure for purposes of taking into consideration the salary of the deceased. 17. It is true at the time of death the deceased was 41 years. If the deceased would j have lived then he would have normally superannuated 17 years thereafter at the age of 58 years. In other words, at the time of retirement one can safely presume that his salary would have doubted itself. Thus Rs. 1,609/- plus Rs. 3,218/- comes to Rs. 4,827/-. Thus the salary component should have been calculated at Rs. 4,827/- p.m. as per the formula laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. When the aforementioned amount of Rs. 4,827/- is divided by two, the figure arrived at is Rs. 2,413.50 paise. This should have been taken to be salary of the deceased for purposes of computing the compensation. Out of this amount, it is natural to expect that the deceased would have spent a sum of Rs. 500/- P.M. on himself. Therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,913.50 paise. The Award therefore is modified only to the extent indicated above and the rest of the Award is not interfered with. In other words, the annual dependency at the rate of 1,913.50 paise comes to Rs. 22,962/-. By applying the multiplier of 18, the sum comes to Rs. 4,13,316/-. Thus the awarded amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 4,13,316/-. The interest component ordered by the Tribunal shall be the same. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the Award modified to the extent indicated above.