Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 951 (PNJ)

Kitabo (Widow) v. Madan Singh

2005-09-07

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohanta, J. 1. The claimants have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon dated 24.4.2002 by which a total compensation of Rs. 3,07,060/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization was awarded in a motor accident. 2. On 9.5.1999, one Lal Chand was going to Village Bhondsi to fetch a doctor. He has standing by the road side to catch a bus from Village Alipur. When he saw truck No. HR-26-4782, he signaled it to stop. Madan Singh-respondent No. l, who was driving the offending vehicle, stopped the truck but before Lal Chand could board it, the truck driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, Lal Chand fell and was run . over by the rear wheel of the truck and before be could reach the hospital, he died. 3. The claimants, who are widow and six children of the deceased Lal Chand have filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 14,40,000/- along with interest. It was averred that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident and that he died because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. 4. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 3 and pleaded that the vehicle was fully insured. 5. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement and admitted that the truck was insured with the Insurance Company. However, it was submitted that the driver of the truck did not have a valid driving license. 6. Trial Court held that Lal Chand had died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. HR-26-4782. These findings have not been challenged either by the driver, owner or the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company could not prove that the license of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. Hence, the finding with regard to Lal Chand having died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck are upheld. 7. The only argument raised by Mr. Sanjay Vij, counsel for the claimants is that the compensation awarded in the present case is highly inadequate as the deceased was 40 years of age and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. 7. The only argument raised by Mr. Sanjay Vij, counsel for the claimants is that the compensation awarded in the present case is highly inadequate as the deceased was 40 years of age and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is contended by him that the deceased was a contractor who was providing labour to the mine-owners for extracting stones and minerals and he was earning between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is further submitted by counsel that out of total earning of the deceased, l/3rd has been deducted whereas the Tribunal ought to have applied unit system and a sum of not more than Rs. 500/- should have been deducted from the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. 8. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that no evidence has been led by the claimants that the income of the deceased was in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-per month. No income tax return or any other document has been placed on record by which this Court can come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was as claimed by them. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,500/- per month treating the deceased to be a contractor. However, the Tribunal has applied a cut of l/3rd of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 2,500/-, which according to the Tribunal, the deceased must be spending for himself. The deceased is survived by his wife and six children. As he had a large family to support, therefore, deductions should have been made on the basis of unit system-Two adults and six children and, therefore, total number of units would come to 10. The deceased was spending only two units on himself. Thus, the deceased was spending a sum of Rs. 500/- on himself and balance Rs. 2,000/- was being given to the family. Accordingly the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. As the deceased was 40 years of age, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly applied a multiplier of 15 which is in accordance with II-Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicle Act. This, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Apart from the above, the claimants are also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. This, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Apart from the above, the claimants are also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/-on account of death of Lal Chand. 9. In view of the above discussion, the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, dated 24.4.2002 is modified to the extent that the claimants are held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. The amount shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. 10. It is stated by counsel for the Insurance Company that the entire amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants. As this Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 63,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, the entire enhanced amount shall go to the widow of Lal Chand, namely, Shrimati Kitabo. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.