Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2698 (PNJ)

Kehar Singh v. Jasbir Singh

2006-07-12

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants while the cross objection has been filed by the insurance company. 2. The facts of the case are that on 10.4.1987 Jasbir Singh (son of the claimants) (now deceased) was travelling on moped TVS-50. His wife Paramjit Kaur was the pillion rider. At about 10 A.M. they were near village Swara on their way to Chandigarh. In the meantime Jeep No. BRO-7722 came from the side of village Landran. It was being driven by Hardeep Singh-respondent No. 2. The said jeep struck against the moped being driven by Jasbir Singh (now deceased). Both Jasbir Singh and Paramjit Kaur received multiple injuries. Jasbir Singh was shifted to Sector 16 Hospital where he died. He was 20 years of age and was working as driver on truck No. CHW-4727. He was earning Rs. 1050/- per month. Hence the parents of Jasbir Singh claimed Rs. 2 lacs as compensation alleging that Jeep No. BRO-7722 was being driven by Hardeep Singh rashly and negligently which caused the accident. Jasbir Singh respondent No. 1 was the owner while Hardeep Singh respondent No. 2 was the driver and the respondent Insurance Company was the insurer of the offending vehicle. They filed the written statement and contested the case. 3. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. 4. After assessing the evidence the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that Jeep No. BRO-7722 was being driven by its driver Hardeep Singh respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently and Jasbir Singh died as a result of this accident. Regarding the amount of compensation the learned Tribunal held that no documentary evidence was produced about the income of Jasbir Singh but the respondents themselves had suggested that the income of Jasbir Singh deceased was Rs. 750/- per month. Therefore it was held to be his income. Deducting the amount which notionally Jasbir Singh used to spend on himself monthly the amount of dependency was taken to be Rs. 500/- per month. Jasbir Singh was 20 years of age and the multiplier of 14 was applied and the amount of compensation was assessed to be Rs. 84000/-. The interest was also awarded @ 6% per annum from the date of the award i.e. 8.1.1988. 5. The claimants are the appellants and they seek enhancement of the amount of compensation. 500/- per month. Jasbir Singh was 20 years of age and the multiplier of 14 was applied and the amount of compensation was assessed to be Rs. 84000/-. The interest was also awarded @ 6% per annum from the date of the award i.e. 8.1.1988. 5. The claimants are the appellants and they seek enhancement of the amount of compensation. Their submission was that the income of Jasbir Singh was Rs. 1050/- per month. But the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected this figure of income for want of evidence. Since the respondents had not disputed the income of Jasbir Singh to be Rs. 750/- per month therefore it was taken to be his income. Since the expenses of Jasbir Singh himself are to be reduced therefore there is nothing wrong in assessing the amount of dependency as Rs. 500/- per month. Even if the income of Jasbir Singh would have gone high then he was also to look after his own family. Therefore the amount of dependency has been properly assessed to be Rs. 500/- per month. 6. However Jasbir Singh was 20 years of age. As per the latest judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court the maximum multiplier is 18 and the highest multiplier applies to the age group of 20-21 years. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Tamil Nadu State Corporation Limited v. S. Raja Priya and Ors. (2005-2) 140 Punjab Law Reporter 650. Therefore the multiplier needs to be increased to 18. Accordingly calculated with this multiplier the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 500 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 108000/-.The appellants shall also be entitled to the rate of Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 7. The appeal is accordingly accepted in the above terms. 8. The cross objections have been filed by the respondent-insurance company against the amount of compensation. As per the latest judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court no appeal lies on behalf of the respondent-insurance company against the amount of compensation. Otherwise also there was no ground to reduce the amount of compensation. Rather it has been increased by accepting the appeal of the claimants. Therefore the cross objections are dismissed.