Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2700 (PNJ)

Teja Singh Consable v. Amarjit Kumar

2006-07-12

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. F.A.O. Nos. 567 568 (along with cross objections No. 56-CII of 1989) 629 of 1988 (alongwith cross objections No. 60-CII of 1991) and F.A.O. No. 866 of 1991 are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts are being from F.A.O. No. 567 of 1988. 2. On 11.1.1984 bus No.PJL-3960 was proceeding from Dhuri towards Sangrur at 8.30 AM. It was owned by respondent No. 3 and was being driven by Jaswant Singh respondent No. 4. When it reached near village Gurdaspura two miles short of Sangrur it met with an accident with Police Van bearing registration No.PBS-2667 which was owned by respondent No. 2 and was being driven by Teja Singh Constable appellant. A case was registered at F.I.R. No. 12 dated 11.1.1984 in Police Station Sangrur for offences punishable under Sections 304-A/279/337 I.P.C. 3. Amarjit Kumar suffered injuries for which he filed M.A.C.T. No. 7 of 17.7.1984. Abaidullah died in this accident for which Anwari Begum and another filed M.A.C.T. case No. 8/15 of 17.7.1984. Surinder Mohan also died in this accident for which Nargis Mohini and others (appellants in cross-objections No. 56-11 of 1989) filed M.A.C.T. No. 9/16 on 17.7.1984. Dr. Jaswant Singh also died in this accident for which Narinder Pal Kaur etc. (appellants in F.A.O. No. 629 of 1988) filed M.A.C.T. No. 3/12 on 5.4.1984. Smt. Bawi also died in this accident for which Dev Singh etc. filed M.A.C.T. No. 5/13 of 23.7.1984. Punjab Singh also died in this accident for which Gurdev Kaur etc. filed M.A.C.T. No. 6/14 of 17.7.1984. All these persons who died and Amarjit Kumar (Respondent in F.A.O. No. 567 of 1988) among others were travelling in this bus. The claimants claimed different amounts as compensation for the deaths of their respective bread winners/injuries suffered on them respectively depending upon the facts of each. 4. The respondents filed written statements and contested the cases. 5. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. 6. After assessing the evidence the learned Tribunal held that Jaswant Singh respondent No. 3 driver of bus No.PJL-3960 and Teja Singh (appellant) driver of Police Van No.PBS-2667 were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently which led to this accident. The claimants were also held entitled to different amounts of compensation depending on the merits of each case. 6. After assessing the evidence the learned Tribunal held that Jaswant Singh respondent No. 3 driver of bus No.PJL-3960 and Teja Singh (appellant) driver of Police Van No.PBS-2667 were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently which led to this accident. The claimants were also held entitled to different amounts of compensation depending on the merits of each case. Accordingly vide award dated 30.10.1987 the Tribunal held that State of Punjab respondent No. 1 being the owner of Police Van No.PBS-2667 and Teja Singh appellant being its driver jointly and severely liable to pay 50% of the amount of compensation to the claimants. Similarly Punjab Roadways Ludhiana Depot respondent No. 3 being the owner and Jaswant Singh respondent No. 4 driver of offending bus No.PJL-3960 will be liable jointly and severally to pay the remaining 50% of the amount of compensation to the claimants. 7. Aggrieved against this award Teja Singh driver of offending vehicle PBS-2667 has filed F.A.O. No. 567 of 1988 against the claimants Amarjit Kumar and others F.A.O. No. 568 of 1988 against Nargis Mohini and others for challenging the award against him. In F.A.O. No. 568 of 1988 Nargis Mohini and others filed cross objections seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. Teja Singh also filed F.A.O. No. 866 of 1991 against Gurdev Kaur and others challenging the passing of award against him. He also filed cross objections in F.A.O. No. 629 of 1988 challenging the passing of award against him. 8. First of allI will take up F.A.O. Nos. 567 of 1988 568 of.1988 F.A.O. No. 866 of 1991 and cross objections No. 60-CII of 1991 in F.A.O. No. 629 of 1988. The learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence regarding contributory negligence of the drivers of both the offending vehicles. Bus No.PJL-3960 was carrying passengers which was being driven by Jaswant Singh. So many persons have died in this accident while some of them have suffered injuries. There is no denying the fact that both these vehicles were involved in the accident. It is also not denied that Teja Singh appellant was driving Police Van No. ABS-2667 which met with an accident with bus No. PJL-3960. Amarjit Kumar one of the claimants had appeared as PW-20.He has attributed rash and negligence driving to Teja Singh driver of Police Van No. PBS-2667. It is also not denied that Teja Singh appellant was driving Police Van No. ABS-2667 which met with an accident with bus No. PJL-3960. Amarjit Kumar one of the claimants had appeared as PW-20.He has attributed rash and negligence driving to Teja Singh driver of Police Van No. PBS-2667. Teja Singh while appearing as his own witness has attributed negligence to the bus driver on the plea that the bus driver was over-taking which led to the causing of this accident but no such plea was taken by him in the written statement. Moreover Teja Singh was being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 304-A I.P.C. in the case registered against him. The Police Van had struck the bus on its right side near the diesel tank. Therefore the learned Tribunal has held it to be a case of contributory negligence of the drivers of both the offending vehicles. I find no ground to disturb this finding of fact. 9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that only the owner should have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. This submission has no legs to stand. Teja Singh driver was responsible in contributing towards the accident. His duty was to derive the van carefully. It is not his duty to cause accident by driving the van rashly and negligently. He being the driver of the offending vehicle alongwith the owner was responsible to pay the amount of compensation. Accordingly F.A.O. Nos. 567 of 1988 568 of 1988 866 of 1991 and the cross objection Nos. 60-C 11 of 1991 in F.A.O. No. 629 of 1988 are dismissed. 10. Appellants in F.A.O. No. 629 of 1988 are the widow and son of Dr. Jaswant Singh Kumar who had died in this accident. They have appealed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Although his income was claimed by the claimants to be Rs. 1678.30 Per month as a Lecturer and Rs. 1100/- per month from tuition and poetry work but the learned Tribunal in para No. 38 of the award has held that there was no proof of the income of Dr. Jaswant Singh from any source except the amount of his salary to the tune of Rs. 1686.40 P. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1200/- was held to be the amount of dependency. Jaswant Singh from any source except the amount of his salary to the tune of Rs. 1686.40 P. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1200/- was held to be the amount of dependency. This Court does not find any fault in determining the amount of income of Dr. Jaswant Singh or the amount of dependency. 11. Dr. Jaswant Singh was 35 years of age at the time of his death and multiplier of 16 was applied by the learned Tribunal. The law was laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Corporation Limited v. S. Raja Priya and Ors. (2005-2) 140 Punjab Law Reporter 650 that 18 is maximum multiplier which should be applied to the age group of 20-21 years while minimum multiplier should be applied to the age group of 60-70 years. Dr. Jaswant Singh being 35 years of age multiplier of 16 has been applied. Therefore no fault can be found with the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly the amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs. 130400/-. The claimants have already been awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Therefore there is no need for any enhancement in the amount of compensation. Accordingly F.A.O. No. 629 of 1988 is dismissed. 12. Cross objection Nos. 56-CII 1989 in F.A.O. No. 568 of 1988 were filed by Nargis Mohini and others for enhancement of the amount of compensation. They had claimed compensation for the death of Surinder Mohan. Surinder Mohan was 40/50 years of age. He was an employee in the Court of Senior Sub Judge Sangrur. He was getting Rs. 1260/- per month as salary at the time of his death. Nargis Mohini was the widow while the omer three claimants were his children. The amount of dependency was taken to be Rs. 900/- while multiplier of 8-1/2 was applied till the age of his retirement. After his retirement the amount of dependency was taken to be Rs. 500/- and multiplier of 7-1/2 was applied. Accordingly the amount of compensation was assessed to be Rs. 91800 + Rs. 45000/- = Rs. 136800/-. In other words when Surinder Mohan was 49/50 years multiplier of 16 was applied. This multiplier was already on the higher side. Therefore there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Accordingly cross objection Nos. Accordingly the amount of compensation was assessed to be Rs. 91800 + Rs. 45000/- = Rs. 136800/-. In other words when Surinder Mohan was 49/50 years multiplier of 16 was applied. This multiplier was already on the higher side. Therefore there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Accordingly cross objection Nos. 56-CII of 1989 in F.A.O. No. 568 of 1988 are also dismissed.