Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3039 (PNJ)

Swadesh Karyala (P) Ltd. v. Bakshish Kaur

2006-07-28

ARVIND KUMAR

body2006
Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. In this appeal filed by respondent No. 2, namely, owner of the offending van, challenge is to award dated 10.10.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana awarding compensation to the claimants for the accident that took place on 30.10.1987. 2. On the other hand, claimants have preferred Cross-objections No. 14-CII of 1992 for enhancement of compensation awarded to them. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 30.10.1987, at about 1 P.M. appellant Bakshish Kaur and her husband, Achhar Singh (deceased) along with their minor son named Billu, aged one year (deceased) were coming on foot to their village Jhande from Baddowal Cantt. The minor son Billu was in the lap of her mother Bakshish Kaur and all three were coming on their left side. When they reached near the workshop of one Mohinder Singh, a maruti van bearing registration No. PBR-5542 came from the back side and over ran them as a result of which all of them received multiple injuries. A person by the name of Inderjit Singh, who was present at the workshop of Mohinder Singh, on seeing the accident came and took them to hospital where Billu minor was declared brought dead while Achhar Singh died after 2/3 hours. Bakshish Kaur was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, said Inderjit Singh lodged a report with the police in regard to the accident. 4. As a result of the above accident, appellant-Bakshish Kaur filed three claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, claiming compensation. In claim petition No. 267/38 of 1987, she claimed compensation on account of death of her husband Achhar Singh; in claim petition No. 268/39 of 1987 compensation was claimed on account of death of son Billu and in claim petition No. 269/40 of 1987, compensation was claimed for the injuries suffered by her in the said accident. 5. Upon notice of the claim petitions, separate set of written statement was tiled in each case by the respondents whereby they denied the accident. 6. On pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the Tribunal whereupon the parties led their respective evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of van. 6. On pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the Tribunal whereupon the parties led their respective evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of van. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- to the claimants on account of death of Achhar Singh; Rs. 20,000/- on account of death of minor Billu; and Rs. 7,000/- to claimant Bakshish Kaur on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident. Compensation in all these three claim petitions was to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment of the compensation amount. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-stated award of the Tribunal, the appellant-respondent No. 2 has approached this Court through the present appeal. On the contrary, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimants have filed Cross-Objections for enhancement of such compensation. 9. The only argument of the counsel for the appellant is that no accident had taken place with maruti van No. PBR-5542 so driven by Charanjit Singh. The argument is not tenable. PW-1 Inderjit Singh, an eyewitness, is very categoric in his statement that Achhar Singh, deceased, his wife Bakshish Kaur and their son Billu were on the left side Kacha portion of the road when maruti van bearing registration No. PBR-5542 came, driven in a rash and negligent manner, and hit against them causing the said unfortunate accident. His statement is duly corroborated by PW-2 Bakshish Kaur on material particulars,. She being the injured in that accident is thus, a stamped witness. No enmity or ill-will has been proved. They would be the last persons to implicate said Charanjit Singh falsely. There are thus, no reasons to disbelieve their statements. FIR, Exhibit P-14, had been lodged by PW-1 Inderjit Singh with almost promptness on the same day thereby narrating the complete sequence of events. Prompt lodging of FIR rules out every possibility of consultations and deliberations. Admittedly, the case has been registered against Charanjit Singh, respondent No. 1. Had it been a false case, it was expected of him to move representations to the higher authorities about registration of false case but admittedly, nothing of the sort had been done by him. Prompt lodging of FIR rules out every possibility of consultations and deliberations. Admittedly, the case has been registered against Charanjit Singh, respondent No. 1. Had it been a false case, it was expected of him to move representations to the higher authorities about registration of false case but admittedly, nothing of the sort had been done by him. This fact goes adverse to his said stand. Concededly, he was facing criminal trial in relation to this accident and as such, there is a strong presumption of his having caused the accident. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard stands repelled, it is duly proved that the accident had taken place with the maruti van bearing registration No. PBR-5542 driven by Charanjit Singh. 10. Claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. PW-2 Bakshish Kaur has stated that her husband Achhar Singh was a handloom worker with earnings of Rs. 50/60 per day. He was also maintaining dairy with earning of Rs. 500/-. There is an exaggeration with regard to his earnings of Rs. 500/- from dairy as there was no such pleading in the claim petition that the deceased was maintaining any dairy or was earning anything therefrom. The earnings of the deceased of Rs. 50/- per day has also not been proved by way of cogent evidence. There is only a bald statement of PW-2 Bakshish Kaur in this regard. No witness has been examined from the employer to prove the said income. However, the Tribunal has taken the daily earnings of deceased at Rs. 20/- per day, which according to me is meager. A handloom worker cannot be rated as an ordinary labourer but certainly would be semi-skilled worker if not skilled. Therefore, his daily income can easily be assessed at Rs. 30/-. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of death. Therefore, multiplier of 16 by the Tribunal has been adequately applied. Claimants are thus held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/- i.e. Rs. 19,200/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Minor son Billu was barely about six months old. Award of Rs. 20,000/- by the Tribunal is again on the lower side. As a general rule, the parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective services of the deceased minor child. 1,15,200/- i.e. Rs. 19,200/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Minor son Billu was barely about six months old. Award of Rs. 20,000/- by the Tribunal is again on the lower side. As a general rule, the parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective services of the deceased minor child. In addition, they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonable to be expected after the child attains majority. No doubt, there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. The question thus is as to what extent the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants upon the young life of their son coming to an abrupt end. There can be no manner of doubt that had he lived he would have been provided the best possible education and this in turn would have made available to him the opportunity of career in profession or services. In this situation, if the family were ever to be in need, it is very unlikely that he would not have extended financial support to them. However, in computing the said benefits, regard must be had to be factors that had the deceased not died then he would have some day have married and have possible children and in that eventuality he would have required substantial amount for meeting the need of his family and his contribution towards the maintenance of his parents would have reduced much. Having regard to the young age of the deceased, the long period for which the parents have looked the pecuniary benefits, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-would be adequate to be awarded to the claimants keeping in view the value of money at the relevant time. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Bakshish Kaur (PW-1) had injuries on her person including fracture. As per statement of PW-5 Dr. John Abrahim coupled with the fact that injury report Exhibit P-21 suggests that she had fracture of both Rami of pubis on left side. She also remained admitted in hospital for the said treatment from 30.10.1987 to 3.11.1987. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said fracture had not united or that she suffered any disability or impairment on account of the same. She also remained admitted in hospital for the said treatment from 30.10.1987 to 3.11.1987. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said fracture had not united or that she suffered any disability or impairment on account of the same. However, at the same time it cannot be lost sight of the fact that she must have suffered a lot of pain and suffering and consequent inconvenience. There is no precise method of just financial recompense for all that the claimant has undergone. However, taking an over all view of the matter and evidence discussed above, Rs. 5,000/- so awarded by the Tribunal under this heading stands enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. PW-5 Dr. John Abrahim has stated that most of the medicines are available in the hospital and the patient has to purchase very little medicine from outside. In this backdrop, Rs. 2,000/- so awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of bills submitted by the claimants is adequate and thus calls no interference. In this way, the compensation payable to injured Bakshish Kaur stands enhanced to Rs. 12,000/-i.e. Rs. 5,000/- over the above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 per cent, however, in the recent years the bank rates have been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of Rs. 7-1/2 per cent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. (2005-2) 140 P.L.R. 650. Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation in this case shall carry interest at the flat rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 14. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed while the cross-objections preferred by the claimants are allowed and award modified in the manner indicated above. No cost.