Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1661 (PNJ)

Basanti Devi v. Satish

2007-09-12

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral):- This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon in MACT case No.101 of 12.9.1985. The claimants-appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs on account of death of Kartar Singh, in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 2.7.1985. 2. The case set up in the claim petition was that on 2.7.1985 at about 2.45 P.M. Kartar Singh-deceased was going from Gurgaon on his motorcycle to his Village Jharsa and when he reached near Kirti Nagar and near CIA Police Post Gurgaon, a tractor No. HRU-2193 was going ahead of him. The deceased is said to have given horn in order to overtake the said tractor and while he was in the process of overtaking, the driver of the tractor suddenly swerved the tractor towards his right side, without giving any indication as a result of which the front right side tyre of the tractor struck with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to this impact, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle in a pit and received multiple injuries. He succumbed to his injuries on 8.7.1985. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was said to be 38 years and it was claimed that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month while working as Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department, Gurgaon. The claim petition was contested and the averments made in the claim petition were denied. The stand taken was that the Tractor No.HR-2193 was not involved in the accident. It was also denied that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month. The Insurance Company while denying the claim, took up the stand that the driver of the tractor did not hold a valid driving licence. It was also claimed that the driver was not working as an employee of the insured while driving the tractor. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question and the resultant death of Kartar Singh was caused due to rash or negligent act of driving of tractor No.HRU-2193, being driven by Satish, its driver in the course of his employment under the owners, as alleged? OPP 2.Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased, as alleged? Whether the accident in question and the resultant death of Kartar Singh was caused due to rash or negligent act of driving of tractor No.HRU-2193, being driven by Satish, its driver in the course of his employment under the owners, as alleged? OPP 2.Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased, as alleged? 3.To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 4. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR5. 5. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence, at the time of accident as alleged? OPR.5 6. Relief” The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the accident in question which resulted in the death of Kartar Singh was caused by the rash and negligent driving of tractor No.HRU-2193. It was driven by Satish, its driver, in the course of this employment under the insured. On issue No.2, it was also held that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. Issues No.4 and 5 were decided against the respondents as no evidence was led by respondent No.5. On issue No.3, the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,15,200/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.600/- whereas it was proved on record that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.978.40/- paise per month. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that keeping in view the fact that the deceased left behind large family consisting of wife and four minor children, the Tribunal should have adopted the unit system and the dependency in that case has to be assessed at Rs.750/- out of the proved income. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that it was brought on record that the deceased was owner of agricultural land which was being cultivated by him. However, no income on this count has been taken into consideration though the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the claimants have suffered loss of supervision on account of death of Kartar Singh. However, no income on this count has been taken into consideration though the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the claimants have suffered loss of supervision on account of death of Kartar Singh. The documentary evidence brought on record shows that the land under the ownership of the deceased was under his self cultivation. Consequently, it has to be held that the additional dependency of the claimants on this count was to the tune of Rs.200/- per month. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 cannot be sustained. In view of the evidence brought on record, it has to be held that the dependency of claimants on the deceased was to the tune of Rs.950/- per month. The multiplier of 16 was rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, it has to be held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,82,400/- on account of death of Kartar Singh. In addition thereto, the claimants are held entitled to further amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the total amount to which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs.1,97,400/- which can be rounded off to Rs.2,00,000/-. The findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 are accordingly reversed, while findings on the other issues are hereby affirmed. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Kartar Singh. In addition thereto, they would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realisation. The liability of respondents shall be joint and several. ----------------------