Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2237 (PNJ)

Piar Kaur v. Surinder Pal Singh

2006-05-18

ARVIND KUMAR

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an appeal by the claimants who are legal heirs of deceased Mohinder Singh for enhancement of compensation awarded by the motor Accident Claims Tribuinal, Ropar. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 30.7.1986 at about 7.30 am, Mohinder Singh was going on his cycle from village Mundow to mohali. When he reached near village Sohana, a truck bearing registration no. CHW-3387 being driven by respondent No.1, Surinder Pal Singh, came from behind and struck against his cycle as a result of which he died at the spot. His legal heirs, namely, widow, two daughters and a son, then filed petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. Upon notice of claim petition, respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement submitted that the truck was insured with respondent no.3, i. e. Insurance company. They submitted that the deceased died due to his own negligence as he was going on the main road in a zig-zag manner. Respondent No.3-insurance company in its written statement stated that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the deceased, Mohinder singh being under the influence of liquor. Driver of truck was not holding a valid driving licence and that the claim is exaggerated. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the learned tribunal vide award dated 17.5.1988, awarded a sum of Rs.57,600.00 as compensation to the claimants (appellants herein) along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment. Out of the said amount, Rs.30,000.00 was awarded to the widow, Piar Kaur, rs.10,000.00 each to two daughters, namely, Balbir Kaur and Kuldip Kaur and Rs.7600.00 to the minor son Lakhbir Singh which was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit payable to him on attaining majority. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award, the claimants-appellants have come to this Court by way of present appeal. There is no cross-appeal by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought enhancement in compensation. His line of argument is that future prospects should also be considered while assessing the salary of the deceased. There is no cross-appeal by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought enhancement in compensation. His line of argument is that future prospects should also be considered while assessing the salary of the deceased. The argument is with reference to judgments of this Court in Smt. Gurjeet Kaur V/s. Gurinder Pal singh @ Mohinder Pal Singh and others, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 525 and Smt. Manjit Kaur V/s. Avtar Singh, 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 391. There is no dispute with this proposition of law but the same have no application to the facts of the present case. In Smt. Gurjeet Kaurs case (supra), the deceased was a young electronic engineer likely to be promoted as Manager Incharge and was having good future. In Smt. Manjit Kaurs case (supra) there was hypothetical assessment of income of the mechanic at Rs.1200.00 per month, and in appeal it was held that a mechanic in the year 1985 could have been earning Rs.1800.00 per month. However, the said positions do not exist here. In the instant case, PW-2 Piar Kaur though has stated that the salary of her husband was Rs.1500.00 per month and he used to contribute rs.1200.00. But she is not telling the truth. The reason is obvious. Claimants have examined PW-3 Rajesh Kumar, Clerk from the employer-company of the deceased. He is clear in his statement that salary of mohinder Singh, as per record was Rs.525.00 per month and apart from that that he used to draw Rs.100.00 towards over-time. The monthly salary of rs.625.00 of the deceased has not been assessed by the Tribunal on hypothetical basis but it duly proved from the record of the employer. There is no scope of any variation. There is nothing on record to suggest that at that age, the deceased had any future prospects or there was likelihood of any increase in his salary. Thus, the monthly salary of rs.625.00 has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. However, the normal rule is the deduction of 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses. This is not an universal rule which should be applied to each and every case. It depends upon the size of the family and amount of salary. The salary of the deceased was meager. However, the normal rule is the deduction of 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses. This is not an universal rule which should be applied to each and every case. It depends upon the size of the family and amount of salary. The salary of the deceased was meager. In this back-drop, it could not be expected that he would spend 1/3rd amount on his personal expenses as out of the said meager salary, substantial amount would be required to support the family consisting of wife and three children. Therefore, in my view, a deduction of rs.125.00 would be appropriate for the purpose of personal expenses. While doing so, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.500.00. It may be apt to mention that in the claim petition, the deceased is shown to be aged 50 years but with a cutting it has been made to be 45 years. However, truth comes out in natural consequence. PW-2 Piar Kaur, widow of the deceased, in her statement has stated that her husband was 50 years of age. Admission is the best evidence. In my considered view, multiplier of 12 has already been liberally applied by the Tribunal and thus, needs no increase. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.72,000.00 (500x12x12), i. e. Rs.14,400.00 over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Out of the enhanced amount, Rs.10,000.00 shall be paid to appellant No.1- widow, Smt. Piar Kaur, while the remaining amount of rs.4400.00 shall be shared equally by appellants 2 to 4, i. e. children of the deceased. 6. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 per cent, however, in the recent years the bank rates have been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State transport Corporation Limited V/s. S. Rajapriya and others, (2005-2) P. L. R.650. Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation in this case shall carry interest at the flat rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. In view of the above, the impugned award stands modified in the manner indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.