Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2724 (PNJ)

Satbir Hussain v. Raj Kali

2006-07-12

S.D.ANAND

body2006
JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J. - The Insurer (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") has filed the present FAO against the award dated 2.12.1992 vide which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), while allowing the petition in favour of the respondent - claimants, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,20,000/- which was ordered to be payable by the appellant. 2. On 16.5.1991, deceased Daya Singh (a retired IPS Officer) died in the impugned accident which was caused by Satbir Hussain, driver by driving the offending vehicle i.e. truck No. UHR-9978 rashly and negligently. The vehicle was owned by its registered owner Rakesh Kumar (respondents No. 1 and 2). Driver and the registered owner contested the averments by a bare denial. The Tribunal noticed that it (written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2) "is brief to a fault and the two respondents have contended themselves with bare denials" 3. Insurer applied for exoneration of liability on various pleas. 4. The trial proceeded on the following issues : 1. Whether the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving by the respondent - driver ? OPP. 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom ? OPP. 3. Relief 5. The Tribunal recorded findings favourable to the respondents and against the appellants under all the issues. As already indicated, a compensation amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- was awarded and whole of the amount was ordered to be payable by the Insurer. 6. The Insurer has filed an appeal to contest the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. On the other hand, the claimants have filed cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. The plea, in the context, is that the Tribunal had erred in disbelieving the presentation at the trial to the effect that the deceased had been offered job by PW3 on a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. If that plea had been believed, it would have led to a much higher assessment of dependency of the claimants, thereby entitling them to a much higher amount of compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file. 8. Mr. 5,000/- per month. If that plea had been believed, it would have led to a much higher assessment of dependency of the claimants, thereby entitling them to a much higher amount of compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file. 8. Mr. N.K. Khosla, learned counsel for the Insurer - appellant, argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount of family pension which is being paid to the widow and dependent children of the deceased. He also argued that the expenses which the deceased might have been incurring on personal up-keep also ought to have been deducted out of his income. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence obtaining on the file is not even adequate to uphold the finding by the Tribunal under Issue No. 1 that the impugned accident had been caused by the driver by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the plea regarding the deduction of family pension from the income of the deceased deserves to be negatived in view of the law laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Bala and others, 2004(3) PLR 320. Qua the personal expenses, it was argued that the deceased would have hardly incurred any expenditure on personal up-keep in view of the fact that he had a large family to support. In that context, he argued that the deceased left a widow, three minor children and parents. As regards the finding under Issue No. 1, the learned counsel argued that the material available on the file fully justifies it. 10. In so far as the last indicated item is concerned, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant deserves to be negatived at the very outset in view of the fact that there is not even a plea on behalf of the Insurer that any permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been obtained. In that view of things, the Insurer would not be entitled to contest the petition on merits. In that view of things, the Insurer would not be entitled to contest the petition on merits. It may otherwise be pointed out that the plea raised by the claimants, in the context, was not only supported by the testimony on oath of PW2 Chattar Singh, an eye witness, but also by the fact that the driver had also conceded facing the prosecution on a charge of having caused the impugned accident. The learned Tribunal has correctly placed reliance upon photograph (Exhibit P7) and site plan (Exhibit P6). The letter had been prepared by Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case. The photograph showed that the car by which the deceased was travelling, was on its left hand side of the road; while the offending vehicle was on the right side of the road. The line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, in the context, is self-explanatory and merits acceptance. 11. The plea with regard to the family pension deserves to be outrightly rejected in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case National Insurance Co. v. Renu Bala (supra). In that case, S.S. Nijjar and J.S. Narang, JJ. categorically held that the family pension received by the claimants is not deducted while determining their dependency on the deceased. 12. In so far as the personal expenses are concerned, it cannot be denied that the deceased had a number of dependents. The statement of PW1 Mst. Raj Kali in the context was not challenged. In that view of things, it would be illogical to expect that he would have spent an unreasonable amount on his personal up- keep. 13. In support of the cross-objections, learned counsel for the claimants argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal invalidating the appointment letter (Exhibit D1) deserves to be set aside. The plea raised thereby is that there is no reason why the testimony of B.S. Narwal, Proprietor of Scoplious Security Service, should not be believed, particularly when it is in his statement that he had employed about 550 people in his security agency and he is the sole proprietor thereof. 14. The plea deserves to be negatived. The mere issuance of an undated appointment letter is not sufficient to hold that the averred appointment had been offered to the deceased. 14. The plea deserves to be negatived. The mere issuance of an undated appointment letter is not sufficient to hold that the averred appointment had been offered to the deceased. PW3 B.S.Narwal conceded having obtained an application (for employment) from the deceased which he had not brought on the date he was examined at the trial. The appointment orders of the averred type would not be issued in the air. In the year 1991, a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- was quite on the higher side. It had to be preceded by at least an application. Indeed, it was averred by PW3 that an application had been given by the deceased. It was, thus, incumbent upon the claimants to have proved the relevant application. It is then only that Exhibit P1 could have inspired confidence. The Tribunal had recorded adequate reasons for discarding the genuineness of Exhibit P1. I have no reasons to differ with the view of the Tribunal. 15. The following can, thus, be safely culled out from the above discussion : 1. The plea, raised by the Insurer-claimant, for deduction of the family pension from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, deserves negation in view of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. v. Renu Bala (supra). 2. The plea with regard to the deduction of any expenses for the personal upkeep stands discarded in view of the large number of dependents the deceased had and also because he was unemployed during the post-retirement period. 3. The averment by the cross-objector stands negatived for want of adequate proof regarding the employment offered to the deceased by PW3 B.S. Narwal. 16. The position that emerges from the above discussion is that the appeal and also the cross objections deserve dismissal and it is so ordered accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of the cause throughout. Appeal dismissed.