Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 845 (PNJ)

Kanwaljit Raju v. Manjit Singh

2005-08-10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The claimants have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree 11.1.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (or short the Tribunal) whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- with 12 per cent interest on account of the death of Jagjit Rai Raju in a road accident on 11.9.1997, and the Insurance Company (respondent No. 4) has been exonerated from making the payment of the compensation amount to the claimants on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. 2. Jagjit Rai Raju, aged 47 years, who was riding a scooter at the relevant time, was knocked down by the truck bearing registration No. PUS-337 at about 4.30 P.M. on 11.9.1997. The truck was being driven by Manjit Singh (respondent No. 1) Dalip Singh (respondent No. 2) and Bhagirath Prasad (respondent No. 3) were the owners of the offending vehicle and it was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No. 4). The claimants, who are widow, daughters, and mother, respectively, of the deceased filed claim petition and claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Jagjit Rai Raju. It was contested by the respondents. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether deceased Jagjit Rai Raju died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUS-337 by Manjit Singh respondent No. 1 on 11.9.1977?...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?...OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident? If so, its effect? OPR-4. 4. Relief. The Tribunal decided issue No. l in favour of the claimants and it was held that the accident had accrued on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1 Manjit Singh. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,00,000/- to be shared by the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the claimants from the date of the claim petition till realisation. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,00,000/- to be shared by the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the claimants from the date of the claim petition till realisation. However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability to make the payment to the claimants on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant lime. Now the claimants have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal. 4. It has been contended by Mr. Ashwani Arora, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the personal expenses of the deceased as Rs. 4,378/-and the deduction at the most at rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month on account of personal expenses sought to have been made. Further it has been contended that the loss of salary approximately to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month, which Mrs. Kanwaljit Raju had to bear on account of change of office by her has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, and thus, it has wrongly been exonerated of its liability. It is contended by Mr. Ashwani Arora, learned Counsel for the appellants, that even if the driving licence was fake, the Insurance Company cannot get away with its liabilities unless and until is proved that even after being aware that the licence was fake, the owner still allowed the vehicle to be driven by such a person holding such a fake driving licence. The counsel has placed reliance on United India Insurance Co. v. Lehru (2003-2)124 P.L.R. 124 (S.C.), in support of his contention. 5. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have vehemently been controverted by Mr. N.K. Khosla, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No. 4. It has been contended that Kishan Chand Guleria (R.W.2) had amply proved that the licence (Ex.R-2) was a forged document. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record. 7. N.K. Khosla, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No. 4. It has been contended that Kishan Chand Guleria (R.W.2) had amply proved that the licence (Ex.R-2) was a forged document. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record. 7. There is no contest to the fact that the accident had occured on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The only contest from the side of the claimants as well as the Insurance Company is with regard to the validity of the licence (Ex.R-2) produced on record. It remains undisputed that Manjit Singh Driver (respondent No. 1) and the owner of the truck Bhagirath Prasad (respondent No. 3) did not produce the original licence on record. They only produced a photo copy of the driving licence alleged to have been issued in favour of Manjit Singh by the Licensing Authority, Chandigarh. Mr. Kishan Chand Guleria (RW-2), who was examined by the Insurance Company, has stated that the licence, photo copy of which is Ex.R-2 was issued in the name of Shori Singh son of Mukha Singh and not in favour of Manjit Singh (respondent No. 1). It is, thus, proved that the owner of the offending vehicle did not take adequate precautions before employing Manjit Singh as driver. However, the Insurance Company has still failed to prove that Bhagirath Prasad, owner of the offending vehicle, was aware of the fake driving licence being held by Manjit Singh driver, at the time when he had employed him and allowed him to drive the truck. Unless and until the Insurance Company proves that the owner was aware of the fact that Manjit Singh driver was holding fake driving licence when he had allowed him (Manjit Singh) to drive the vehicle, it cannot be exonerated from its liability to make the payment of compensation of the claimants. It has been so held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lehrus case (supra). 8. So far as the quantum of compensation which the claimants are entitled to is concerned there is no dispute to the fact that deceased Jagjit Rai Raju was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 14,378/-. The deceased might be spending only Rs. 2,000/- per month as personal expenses. In this way, after deducting one third (Rs. 8. So far as the quantum of compensation which the claimants are entitled to is concerned there is no dispute to the fact that deceased Jagjit Rai Raju was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 14,378/-. The deceased might be spending only Rs. 2,000/- per month as personal expenses. In this way, after deducting one third (Rs. 4,792/-) as personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 9,586/- or Rs. 1,15,032/- per annum. As per the Schedule given in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act), multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied as the deceased was about 47/48 years of age at the time of his death in the road accident. By multiplying the figure of Rs. 1,15,032/- with 13, the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants comes to Rs. 14,95,416/-. The claimants are also entitled to be compensated for loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I am of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should also be awarded to the claimants on this count. Thus, the compensation amount to be paid to the claimants would come to Rs. 15,05,416/-. The claimants are also allowed interest at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. It is further held that the Insurance Company (respondent No. 4) shall make the payment of the whole amount of compensation along with interest to the claimants. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.