Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3027 (PNJ)

Surinder Kaur v. Gurdev Singh

2006-07-26

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of FAO No. 1081 of 2004 Surinder Kaur and others v. Gurdev Singh and others; FAO No. 1440 titled Gurdev Singh v. Surinder Kaur and others; FAO No. 1441 titled Gurdev Singh v. Suman Singal and others and FAO No. 792 of 2003 titled Suman Singhal and others v. Gurdev Singh and others. 2. All these four appeals arise out of the common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short the Tribunal). In FAO No. 1081 of 2004 the facts are as under :- "Claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimants Surinder Kaur and others for the grant of compensation on account of death of Kulwant Singh s/o Polo Singh r/o Vill. Barewal, tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana, who died in a road accident on 19.7.1999. On that day at about 9.15 a.m. the deceased was going on his scooter No. PIL-7520 from his house to Ludhiana city to do his daily routine job. When he reached opposite Kaka Marriage Palace, Ferozepur Road, he stopped his scooter because of red signal. Meanwhile, a bus bearing No. PB-12B-9805 of Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh Depot driven by respondent No. 1 Gurdev Singh, rashly, negligently and at a fast speed and without blowing any horn, came from behind and ran over the scooter of the deceased and scooter of one Ravi Kumar besides hitting a three wheeler of Manmohan Singh, due to which deceased Kulwant Singh and Ravi Kumar died at the spot and driver of three wheeler was seriously injured. Respondent No. 1 after stopping the bus ran away from the spot. Scooter No. PIL-7520 was also damaged in this accident in total. This accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-12B-9805 by its driver respondent No. 1 Gurdev Singh regarding which an FIR was registered at P.S. Divn. No. 5, Ludhiana. The age of deceased at the time of his death was 46 years and he was a carpenter and was earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. Claimant No. 1 is the widow, claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters and claimant No. 6 is the son of the deceased, who all were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The age of deceased at the time of his death was 46 years and he was a carpenter and was earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. Claimant No. 1 is the widow, claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters and claimant No. 6 is the son of the deceased, who all were dependent upon the income of the deceased. They have suffered a great loss on account of the untimely death of deceased Kulwant Singh in a road accident. The vehicle in question was owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the present claim petition. Notice of this claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 in his written statement took preliminary objection that this claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further, it is pleaded that the identity of the defaulting driver has not been established as according to the claim case the driver had fled away from the spot after the alleged accident. It is also pleaded that owner and insurance company of the scooter No. PIL- 7250 are not impleaded. On merits, it is pleaded that no accident had taken place with the bus driven by respondent No. 1. The FIR is alleged to be registered falsely against respondent No. 1 on account of misguided suspicion. Ownership of bus in question is admitted. Rest of the allegations are also denied by this respondent. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their joint written statement took preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable and that the claimants are not the legal heirs of deceased. On merits, it is pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for any kind of compensation from the answering respondents. It is also pleaded that scooter No. PB-10W-1481 of deceased was driven by him rashly and negligently without observing the traffic rules of the road and he tried to cross the red signal and applied the brakes and scooter slipped away and fell down on the road and Ravi Kumar driver of the scooter along with Kulwant Singh deceased sustained injuries due to their own fault. The bus in question is alleged to be wrongly involved in this case and the FIR has been wrongly lodged against the respondent No. 1 in connivance with the local police only to get undue compensation from the respondents. The bus in question is alleged to be wrongly involved in this case and the FIR has been wrongly lodged against the respondent No. 1 in connivance with the local police only to get undue compensation from the respondents. Rest of the pleas taken by these respondents are similar to one as taken by respondent No. 1. So I do not want to discuss the same in order to avoid repetition." On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether Kulwant Singh s/o Polo Singh died in a road accident on 19.7.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB-12-B-9805 by its driver, respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation if so, from whom and how much ? OPP 3. Whether claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased ? OPR 6. Relief." 3. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Kulwant Singh to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deducted from the quantum of maintenance towards his personal expenses. Thus, the learned Tribunal took the dependency to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and applied multipler of 12. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- as compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that in view of the fact that the deceased was having a large family to support, deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be sustained towards personal expenses. He also challenged the multiplier applied by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was held to be age of 45 years and therefore, as per the Schedule multiplier of 13 was required to be applied. 5. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and feel that the Tribunal was not right in assessing the dependency of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 3,000/- in view of the large family which was supported by him. I feel that an amount of Rs. 5. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and feel that the Tribunal was not right in assessing the dependency of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 3,000/- in view of the large family which was supported by him. I feel that an amount of Rs. 500/- ought to have been deducted out of the income assessed by the Tribunal and accordingly the dependency of the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per month. The multiplier of 13 is to be applied. Accordingly, the compensation under issue No. 2 is assessed at Rs. 3,90,000/- (2500 x 12 x 13). Besides this, the compensation for damage to the scooter assessed at Rs. 5,000/- by the learned Tribunal is maintained. The claimants are also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as consortium. Hence the total amount of compensation payable comes to Rs. 4,02,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants have also challenged the relief clause, which reads as under : "In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, this claim petition is accepted with costs and an award in the sum of Rs. 2,93,000/- as just compensation on account of the death of Kulwant Singh in motor vehicle accident is ordered to be passed in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Claimants shall also be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of application till its realisation. In this amount of award, the claimants shall be entitled to the amount along with interest accrued thereon as under :- (a) Claimant No. 1 : Rs. 75,000/- (b) Claimant Nos. 2 to 5 : Rs. 1,80,000 (Rs. 45,000/- each) (c) Claimant No. 6 : Rs. 38,000/- Total : Rs. 2,93,000/- Claimant Nos. 1 to 2 are stated to be major. So the amount pertaining to their share be paid to them in cash. Remaining claimants are stated to be minors. So the amount pertaining to their share be deposited in some nationalised bank till their majority in their names in the form of FDRs. 1/2 of the amount of above said award along with interest is to be recovered from respondent No. 1 and whereas remaining 1/2 amount along with interest is to be recovered from respondent Nos. So the amount pertaining to their share be deposited in some nationalised bank till their majority in their names in the form of FDRs. 1/2 of the amount of above said award along with interest is to be recovered from respondent No. 1 and whereas remaining 1/2 amount along with interest is to be recovered from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they are directed to pay the same accordingly within a period of two months from today. The amount of interim compensation if any, already paid to the claimants be adjusted in the amount of this award. Counsel fee is assessed to Rs. 500/-." The findings of the learned Tribunal to the effect that half of the amount of the above said award along with interest is to be recovered from respondent No. 1, whereas the remaining half of the amount along with interest is to be recovered from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be sustained as it is against the basic law of fixation of responsibility of the master and servant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not right in fixing the liability at the ratio of 50:50 between the two. 7. Accordingly, the relief clause is also modified and the liability is held to be joint and several between respondent Nos. 1 to 3. However, keeping in view the fact that no negligence was attributed to the scooter driver, respondent No. 4, the insurer of the Scooter cannot be held to be liable to pay any amount. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is allowed. The claimants are held entitled to the amount of compensation as under :- Claimant No. 1 : Rs. 1,02,901/-; Claimant Nos. 2 to 5 : Rs. 2,46,962/-; Claimant No. 6 : Rs. 52,137/- In addition, the claimants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition. FAO Nos. 1440 and 1441 of 2004 Learned counsel for the appellants has only challenged the fixation of liability in the ratio of 50:50 between the owner and the appellant. Both these appeals are allowed. The liability is held to be joint and several between the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 to 6 in FAO No. 1441 of 2004 and the petitioner, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in FAO No. 1440 of 2004. Both these appeals are allowed. The liability is held to be joint and several between the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 to 6 in FAO No. 1441 of 2004 and the petitioner, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in FAO No. 1440 of 2004. FAO No. 792 of 2003 This appeal has been filed claiming compensation on account of death of Ravi Kumar in the same accident. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : "1. Whether Ravi Kumar s/o Sham Lal died in a road accident on 19.7.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB-10B-9805 by its driver, respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation ? If so, from whom and how much ? OPP 3. Whether claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased ? OPP 6. Whether the deceased did not have any valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident ? If so, its effect ? OPR 7. Relief." Under issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 6,22,125/- as compensation to the claimants. No fault can be found with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal which may call for any interference by this Court. However, challenge in this appeal is also to the relief clause which reads as under :- "In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, this claim petition is accepted with costs and an award in the sum of Rs. 6,22,125/- is ordered to be passed in favour of the claimants and against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as just compensation on account of the death of Ravi Kumar in a road accident. The claimants shall also be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of application till its realisation. In this amount of award, the claimants shall be entitled to the amounts along with interest accrued thereon as under :- (a) Claimant No. 1 : Rs. 1,72,125/- (b) Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 : Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- each) Total : Rs. 6,22,115/- Claimant Nos. 1 to 2 are major. So the amount pertaining to their share be paid to them in cash. Claimant Nos. 1,72,125/- (b) Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 : Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- each) Total : Rs. 6,22,115/- Claimant Nos. 1 to 2 are major. So the amount pertaining to their share be paid to them in cash. Claimant Nos. 3 to 4 are stated to be minors. So the amounts pertaining to their share be deposited in some nationalized bank till their majority in the form of FDRs in their names. 1/2 of the amount of above said award along with interest is to be recovered from respondent No. 1 and whereas remaining 1/2 amount along with interest is to be recovered from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they are directed to pay the same accordingly within a period of two months from today. In view of the reasons given in FAO No. 1081 of 2004 above the relief clause is modified and the responsibility of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is held to be joint and several. It is also made clear that as the accident had occurred due to negligence of respondent No. 1 and no negligence was attributed to driver of Scooter no liability is being fixed on respondent No. 4 i.e. the insurer of the scooter. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.