Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1962 (PNJ)

Darshan Kaur v. Jarnail Singh

2006-05-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Vinod Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the Judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dated 2.8.1994, vide which the claimants Nos. 2 to 6 were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that on 1.3.1992 Surinder Singh deceased while preceding on his scooter No. PAH-4426 from Sirhind to Patiala met with an accident with truck bearing registration No. PB-10C-9831 driven by Shri Amarjit Singh, respondent No. 2. It was the case of the claimants that the said truck was being driven by him rashly and negligently in a zig zag manner and on account of the accident Surinder Singh deceased died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Sarvshri Rajinder Singh and Sucha Singh. However, according to the claimants, driver Amarjit Singh and owner Jarnail Singh were influential persons and made a false report. It was also the case of the claimants that Surinder Singh deceased was working as Head Constable with the Punjab Police and was aged about 32 years. His salary at the time of the accident was Rs. 2650/- per month and accordingly a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was claimed as compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 1 Jarnail Sigh, owner of the truck, where he took a plea that no accident had taken place on 1.3.1992. According to him, story of accident was fabricated and concocted one and the claim petition was filed in order to grab money from the respondents. 4. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. it was stated that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, nor the valid registration certificate and fitness certificate, though it was admitted that the truck was insured. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: (1) Whether Surinder Singh died in a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-10C-9831 driven by respondent No. 2 Amarjit Singh on 1.3.1992 in the revenue limits of village Nalleni? OP A 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom of the respondents? OPA 3. Relief. 5. OP A 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom of the respondents? OPA 3. Relief. 5. On issue No. 1, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-10C-9831 and that Surinder Singh died on account of the said accident. On issue No. 2, by taking into consideration the evidence produced before it, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the gross salary of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs. 2,900/- out of which Rs. 400-500/- were personal allowances. It was found by the Tribunal that out of remaining Rs. 2,500/- the deceased may be contributing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the family. However, keeping in view the evidence led regarding family pension, the Tribunal by deducting the family pension being given to the widow of the deceased held that dependency should be calculated at Rs. 1,000/- per month. This figure was arrived at by taking into consideration the future prospects and, a multiplier of 12 was applied. 6. Mr. Palwinder Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, strongly contended that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in law in taking into consideration the family pension being drawn by the widow on account of the death of the deceased. He placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Bala and Ors. (2004-3) 138 P.L.R. 320, to contend that the amount of family pension received by the claimants cannot be deducted while computing the loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the dependency cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the dependency is held to be Rs. 2,000/-per month and the family pension drawn by the widow of the deceased was liable to be ignored while calculating the compensation payable. 7. It was next contended by the learned Counsel that the deceased was aged about 33 and a half years at the time of accident, therefore, a multiplier of 17 should have been applied. However, Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company with Mr. 7. It was next contended by the learned Counsel that the deceased was aged about 33 and a half years at the time of accident, therefore, a multiplier of 17 should have been applied. However, Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company with Mr. A.P.Manchanda, Advocate contended that it would not be safe to apply a multiplier of 17 as claimed by the counsel for the appellants and for this purpose he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Rajapriya and Ors. (2005-2) 140 P.L.R. 650. 8. I have gone through the said Judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court and find that the Hon ble Supreme Court has not considered the multipliers mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, but has only laid down the process of calculation of the compensation to be paid. What has been stated in the said Judgment is that the compensation should be awarded in such a manner, so that the claimants are able to get an income which may be assessed as the loss of dependency suffered by them due to death of the deceased. In the Motor Vehicles Act, the Legislature in its wisdom has laid down the multiplier to be applied depending on the age of the deceased. In my view, it would be the safe criteria especially when the interest rates are changing every day and it has become difficult to ascertain the amount which may constantly give income to the person if the amount is deposited in the fixed deposit. Therefore, I agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the multiplier should be of 17. Accordingly, the findings on issue No. 2 is modified and applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,08,000/-. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. In addition thereto, the claimants are also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as consortium. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 4,15,000/- alongwith interest. The liability to pay the compensation shall be joint and several of the respondents.