Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2703 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur v. Himmat Singh

2006-07-12

S.D.ANAND

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. Claimants are legal representatives of Gurdev Singh, in whose favour an award for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,52,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of payment thereof, had been passed by the learned Motor Accident claims, Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The amount was payable jointly and severally by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation awarded, claimants have filed the present F. A. O. for enhancement. No cross-objection or cross appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Machanada, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. S. Pannu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of respondent No.2-State. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1driver. 3. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the claim awarded by the Tribunal warrants enhancement on the following counts: (a) The Tribunal had ordered the applicability of multiplier of 16; whereas the multiplier applicable ought to have been of 17; (b) The Tribunal ought not to have ordered the deduction of l/3rd as the amount for the personal upkeep of the deceased as he had a large family to support; (c) The claimants had adduced evidence to the effect that the deceased had much higher income from the date (sale?) of tractors and he was earning a much higher amount as commission from L. I. C. business and further that his income from the agriculture holding was much higher than the assessment made by the Tribunal. 4. Insofar as the grievance indicated at point (a) is concerned, it merits acceptance. One just has to peruse the second schedule to find that a multiplier of 17 would be applicable if the age of the victim was in the age group between 30 to 35 years. On the own showing of the claimants, deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the impugned accident. The plea shall stand upheld accordingly. 5. Insofar as the grievance with regard to l/3rd deduction is concerned, it deserves to be repelled. The large number of dependents notwithstanding, it has to be taken cognizance of that the deceased is proved to have been running sub-agency of tractors and was also functioning as an L. I. C. agent. The plea shall stand upheld accordingly. 5. Insofar as the grievance with regard to l/3rd deduction is concerned, it deserves to be repelled. The large number of dependents notwithstanding, it has to be taken cognizance of that the deceased is proved to have been running sub-agency of tractors and was also functioning as an L. I. C. agent. Both these businesses involve visit by clients/customers. The deceased must have been visiting his clients under the L. I. C. business and would have obviously required a reasonable amount for his personal upkeep. In that view of things the deduction of l/3rd by the Tribunal is in order. 6. Insofar as the grievance at point (c) is concerned, it is devoid of force. There is not even an iota of evidence to prove the exact yearly income, the deceased had from the agricultural holding. The mere tendering of the couples of the revenue record to evidence the extent of agricultural holding, would not be appropriate. It was for the claimants to have adduced some bit of evidence to prove what were the sale proceeds of the yearly agricultural produce. For want of evidence in that behalf, the Tribunal correctly assessed the yearly agricultural income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-. 7. Insofar as the income from the tractors sale and L. I. C. business is concerned, there also the approach of the Tribunal cannot be faulted on any valid score. The claimants had adduced evidence to prove that the deceased sold five tractors and earned commission of Rs.14,750/- during the period of 19.2.1988 to 24.6.1988. It is also in evidence that the deceased did not sell any tractor in the month of July and August, 1988. It would be in comprehensive to expect that the income earned by the deceased during four months aforesaid could form the basis of his uniform yearly income. The same applies to his income from the L. I. C. business. The Tribunal correctly observed that if the deceased had income of more than Rs.18,000/- per annum, he would have been assessed to income tax. There is no averment by the claimants, that the deceased was an income tax payee. While appreciating this argument, it may be noticed that the L. I. C. , being a Government of India revenue, must be paying the commission to its agents after documenting it. There is no averment by the claimants, that the deceased was an income tax payee. While appreciating this argument, it may be noticed that the L. I. C. , being a Government of India revenue, must be paying the commission to its agents after documenting it. It was for the claimants to have proved on file the income earned by the deceased from the L. I. C. business and tractor business for the last few years. It is then only that this Court could get a fair idea about his yearly income in the context. 8. The Tribunal recorded valid reasons for holding that it was the respondent No.1 only who had caused the impugned accident by driving offending vehicle bearing registration No. HNE-374 rashly and negligently. In that context, it was noticed that the respondent No.1 is facing prosecution on a charge of having causing the impugned accident. The Tribunal, for valid reasons, discarded the plea of false implication raised by him. The accident had taken place on 21.8.1988. The Tribunal rightly noticed that respondent No.1 is not proved to have lodged any protest with any authority about his averred false implication. Respondent No.1 also did not examine the conductor or two named police officials travelling by the bus to buttress his plea that the vehicle driven by him on the relevant date was not involved in the impugned accident. There also is not explanation whatsoever to explain, why the conductor and the other two police officials have been withheld from the witness box. 9. For the above reasons, except with regard to variation on point of applicability of multiplier, the appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. In view of the finding that the multiplier of 17 would be applicable, it is held that the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,74,000/-. The other part of the award, relating to costs and interest and also the apportiontment thereof, shall stand upheld. .