Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4426 (PNJ)

Karamjit Kaur v. Kulbir Singh

2006-11-29

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against an order dated 18.3.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, the Tribunal) vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Gurpreet Singh alias Bhola, in a motor accident has been dismissed. 2. The appellants-claimants, in the claim petition, have submitted that on 16.4.1995 Rajvinder Singh son of Ram Singh, resident of Village Gaddiarm, Police Station Nabha, District Patiala, was engaged as a Cleaner on truck bearing registration No. PB-11-B-2095 while deceased Gurpreet Singh alias Bhola was driver of the truck. They both after loading coal from Jharia proceeded towards Ludhiana and when they reached at some distance from Bus Adda, Ambala Cantt. near the crossing, then a tanker was seen coming from the opposite direction, i.e. Ambala side bearing registration No. PCI-4805. The said tanker was being driven rashly and negligently at very fast speed and after coming on the wrong side, it struck against their truck, as a result of which Gurpreet Singh alias Bhola deceased was entangled between the two vehicles and he was extracted by the people collected at the spot. Gurpreet Singh succumbed to his injuries. It was also claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle, after abandoning the tanker at the spot, ran away and later on the name of the tanker driver was found to be Kulbir Singh. It was also claimed that the accident had occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver, i.e. respondent No. 1. Report about the said accident was lodged with the Police Station, Ambala Cantt., as a result of which FIR No. 144 dated 17.4.1995 was registered at Police Station, Ambala Cantt. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted at the General Hospital, Ambala Cantt. The claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs only) along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of accident till its actual realization. The driver and owner were duly served. However, they did not choose to contest the petition and accordingly they were proceeded ex parte. The claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs only) along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of accident till its actual realization. The driver and owner were duly served. However, they did not choose to contest the petition and accordingly they were proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3, i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited contested the petition by taking a stand that Rajvinder Singh son of Ram Singh was not engaged as a Cleaner of Truck No. PB-11-B-2095. It was also claimed that the tanker bearing registration No. PCI-4805 was not being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed or that it came on the wrong side to strike against the truck. The death of Gurpreet Singh alias Bhola was also denied. It was also denied that the deceased Gurpreet Singh was employed as a driver or that he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month, as claimed by the claimants. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal was pleased to frame the following issues :- 1. Whether Gurpreet Singh deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 on 16.4.1995 at 11.30 p.m. in the area of Ambala Cantt. ? OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to the amount of compensation ? If so, its effect ? OPA 3. Relief. 4. On Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove the said accident and accordingly decided Issue No. 1 against the claimants-appellants. In view of the finding on Issue No. 1, no finding was recorded on Issue No. 2 and the same was decided against the appellants-claimants. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that in absence of any document to show that the owner of the truck ever paid any salary to the deceased or to Rajvinder Singh, it could not be said that Rajvinder Singh was eye-witness to the accident. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that on account of failure to produce Mechanical Test Report of the truck, it was not possible to prove that the truck was involved in the accident. It was also claimed that the Insurance Policy of the truck bearing registration No. PB-11-B-2095 was withheld from the Court. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that on account of failure to produce Mechanical Test Report of the truck, it was not possible to prove that the truck was involved in the accident. It was also claimed that the Insurance Policy of the truck bearing registration No. PB-11-B-2095 was withheld from the Court. Finally, by taking note of the fact that even in the post-mortem report, the Doctor had not given any opinion that the death has occurred on account of road accident, it was not possible to decide Issue No. 1 in favour of the appellants-claimants. 5. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1 primarily on the ground that the finding recorded is the outcome of misreading of the evidence on record. 6. It has to be noticed that in support of the claim petition, the claimants had produced Rajvinder Singh as PW-2, who in examination-in-chief, categorically stated as under :- "xx xx when we reached at 10.00 p.m. near Ambala Bus Adda, near crossing, then a tanker bearing No. PCI-4805 came from the opposite direction rashly and negligently and he after coming to wrong side struck against our truck, as a result of which Gurpreet Singh died at the spot. While I received injuries and driver of the tanker fled away after abandoning the truck from the spot." This part of the statement was not challenged in the cross-examination. Rather, a suggestion was put that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. Thus, it can be safely said that evidence on record clearly proved that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker which was driven by respondent No. 1. Not only this, the learned Tribunal misread the post-mortem report wherein it was clearly mentioned that it was a case of road side accident. In view of this, there was hardly any reason for the Doctor to give an opinion that the injuries on the body of the deceased were on account of motor vehicle accident. It may further be noticed that the report regarding accident was immediately made to the Police and on the basis of which FIR No. 144 dated 17.4.1995 under Sections 279/304-A, IPC was registered against the driver of tanker bearing registration No. PCI-4805. It may further be noticed that the report regarding accident was immediately made to the Police and on the basis of which FIR No. 144 dated 17.4.1995 under Sections 279/304-A, IPC was registered against the driver of tanker bearing registration No. PCI-4805. Thus, the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1 cannot be sustained which are accordingly reversed and it is held that Gurpreet Singh died on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 on 16.4.1995 at 11.30 p.m. in the area of Ambala Cantt. 7. On Issue No. 2, Karamjit Kaur widow of Gurpreet Singh appeared as AW-1 and stated that Gurpreet Singh was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and in addition thereto he used to be paid Rs. 100/- per day extra if he had to go on long journey. It was also stated that the deceased was 23/24 years old at the time of his death. Though the said statement has not been challenged in the cross- examination, however, it may be noticed that the claimants failed to prove any evidence of his income by producing his employer in support of the case. In view of this, the bald statement made by AW-1 cannot be taken to be a gospel truth. However, keeping in view that the deceased was an able-bodied person and, therefore, even as unskilled labourer he would be deemed to be earning at least Rs. 2,500/- per month. Accordingly, his income per month is assessed at Rs. 2,500/-, out of which giving margin to the expenses he used to incur upon himself, it would be safe to assess the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 1,700/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, I think, a multiplier of 17 should be applied for coming to the conclusion for assessment of the compensation payable to the appellant Nos. 1 to 2, as no amount would be payable to appellant No. 3, as he admittedly, was not dependent upon the deceased. It has come in the evidence of AW-1 that appellant No. 1 was owner of 2-4 killas of land and was an agriculturist. Thus, Issue No. 2 is also decided in favour of the appellants-claimant Nos. 1 to 2 and it is held that they would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,46,800/-. It has come in the evidence of AW-1 that appellant No. 1 was owner of 2-4 killas of land and was an agriculturist. Thus, Issue No. 2 is also decided in favour of the appellants-claimant Nos. 1 to 2 and it is held that they would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,46,800/-. In addition thereto, the claimants would also be entitled to consortium of Rs. 5,000/- and cremation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. Thus, total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 3,53,800/-. In view of the findings recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The claim petition filed on behalf of appellant Nos. 1 to 2 is allowed and it is held that they would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,53,800/- in equal shares. They would further be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent on the said amount from the date of the Award i.e. 18.3.1998. The liability of the respondents shall be joint and several. Appeal allowed.