Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1551 (PNJ)

Alphansa Raphael v. Kamal Dev

2006-04-19

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
ORDER VINOD K. SHARMA, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgement passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rup Nagar (for short the Tribunal) vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants claiming a compensation on account of the death of N.J. K. Raphael, who was working as Cane Operator in the Ropar Thermal Plant was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the deceased while going to duty was knocked down by Truck No.PUR-7249 driven by Kamal Dev, respondent No.1 rashly and negligently. On account of the accident, N.J.R. Raphael was taken to Civil Hospital, Rup Nagar where he was declared to have brought dead. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Company, respondent No.2. The respondents appeared in the case and filed written statement wherein factum of accident having taken place with truck No. PUR 7249 was denied and thus, respondents denied their liability to pay any compensation on account of said accident. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: 1. Whether the accident in question in which death of Sh. N.J.K. Ramphael caused, was the result of rash and negligent driving of truck No.PUR 7240 by Kamal Dev respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.1 Kamal Dev was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident? 3. Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file the claim petition? OPR1. 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 5. Relief. 4. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 came to the conclusion that no evidence was brought on record to connect the accident with the truck No.PUR-7249 and thus, for lack of evidence it was held that the claimants have not been able to connect the accident with the offending truck in question and accordingly, issue No.1 was decided against the claimant- appellants. On issue No.2, no evidence was led and therefore, the said issue was decided against the respondents. On issue No.2, no evidence was led and therefore, the said issue was decided against the respondents. In view of the findings on issue No.1, the learned tribunal also held that the claimants had no locus standi to prefer the claim against the respondents and no findings were recorded on issue No.4 i.e. the amount of compensation to which the claimants were entitled to keeping in view the finding on issue no.1 the claim petition was dismissed. 5. Mr. Vikram Dhaka, learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the finding on issue No.1 on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in law in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence. He submitted that PW 3 Nihal Singh was produced as a witness in support of the factum of accident who deposed about the accident having taken place. The evidence led by him was reproduced by the learned Tribunal in toto in coming to the conclusion that in fact, the statement given by Nihal Singh PW 3 did not connect the accident with the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that beside the statement of PW 3 Nihal Singh the appellants had also brought on record the Post Mortem Report Ex.PA which clearly showed that Nihal Singh PW 3 had taken the deceased to the hospital. He pointed out that according to the Post Mortem Report the death was caused on account of shock due to injury No.1 and it was further held that the injury suffered by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The other important evidence brought on record was copy of the FIR Ex.PB which was lodged by Nihal Singh. In the said FIR it was specifically stated that the truck driver was caught at the spot and it was not disputed that criminal case was also tried against respondent No.I. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported as Bansi Yadav and another Vs. In the said FIR it was specifically stated that the truck driver was caught at the spot and it was not disputed that criminal case was also tried against respondent No.I. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported as Bansi Yadav and another Vs. Krishan Kumar and another (2004-2) P.L.R. 234 wherein this court held as under: “Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition inasmuch as there is sufficient evidence on record which amongst others includes the FIR which has been exhibited as Exhibit PB and also the post mortem examination report exhibited as Exhibit PA from which it can be clearly shown that the deceased Siri Ram died due to the motor vehicle accident caused by the offending vehicle driven by Krishan Kumar (respondent No.1). He, further contends that as per the admitted statement of Bansi Yadav, who appeared as PW 2, stated that the deceased was earning Rs.700/- per month, out of which he used to send Rs.500/- to his parents, therefore, the compensation as prayed was liable to be awarded.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the learned Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence to connect respondent No.1 with the accident. The documentary evidence i.e. the FIR when read with the statement of PW 3 Nihal Singh leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 which resulted in the death of N.J.K. Ramphael. Therefore, the findings on issue No.1 are hereby reversed and the issue is decided in favour of the claimants and it is held that the accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No.PUR-7249 which was driven by respondent No.1. 7. Now the next question to he decided is the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. PW 1 Smt. Alphansa Ramphael widow of the deceased in her statement stated that her husband was employed as a Cane Operator in the Ropar Thermal Plant and he was drawing a salary of about Rs.1200/- per month. It has also come on record that he was 38 years of age at the time of accident. PW 1 Smt. Alphansa Ramphael widow of the deceased in her statement stated that her husband was employed as a Cane Operator in the Ropar Thermal Plant and he was drawing a salary of about Rs.1200/- per month. It has also come on record that he was 38 years of age at the time of accident. The claimants also produced Piara Singh, Junior Engineer, as PW 2 to prove that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.1125/ - per month and his basic pay was Rs.525/-. He also proved the date of birth of the deceased to be 2.6.1947. However, in the cross-examination PW 3 Nihal Singh stated that the carry home salary of the deceased after deductions was Rs.1000/-. Thus, the evidence on record proved that the deceased was drawing a carry home salary of Rs.1000/- per month. The deceased must be spending a sum of Rs.300/- on himself and therefore, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.700/- per month. The age of the deceased was 38. years at the time of the accident. Therefore, it would be appropriate to apply the multiplier of 16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of (700 x 12 x 16)= Rs.l,34,400/-. In addition, the claimants would also be entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.2000/- and a sum of Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the findings on issue No.4 are also reversed and it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,41,400/- on account of death of MJ.K. Ramphael. The amount of compensation shall be paid jointly and severally by the respondents. 8. Keeping in view the above discussion and findings, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.5.1986 passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. Both the claimants are awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,41,400/- which would be shared equally between the appellants. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9.5 per cent per annum on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.