Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2072 (PNJ)

Sudama Devi v. Kewal Ram

2007-11-28

SHAM SUNDER

body2007
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of the afore-stated two appeals, the first filed by the claimants-appellants for the enhancement of compensation and the second filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus, for dismissal of the claim petition, arising out of one and the same award dated 8.3.1990, rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, relating to the same accident. 2. On 7.12.88, Chander Wali deceased, his wife Sudama Devi and Munshi Ram her brother had come to see off his (Chander Walis) sister and her husband and they were waiting for a bus near New Corner Hotel, Patiala. A bus bearing No. PUV 2423 reached there and the conductor of the bus was repeating time and again that the same was going to Nabha and at this Chander Wali, deceased stepped into the bus from its front side door, but Sudama Devi, however, could not board the same. Since Sudama Devi could not board the bus, he requested the conductor to stop the same, as a result whereof, it was stopped for a while, in between the railway gate No. 18 and the crossing near New Corner Hotel, Patiala. At that time, Chander Wali tried to get down from the bus, but Kewal Ram, driver of the same, started it at once, without ensuring that he had actually got down therefrom. On account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, Chander Wali fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. When he was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. 3. At the time of the accident and death of Chander Wali, he was aged about 25 years. He was a labourer and was also running a tea stall. His monthly income was Rs. 2,100, Sudama Devi, widow; Durga Devi and Laxmi Devi, minor daughters; Rajiv Kumar and Ranjit Kumar, minor sons of Chander Wali were completely dependent upon him for their livelihood. Accordingly, a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was filed. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, put in their appearance and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections and contested the petition. It was pleaded that the petition was not maintainable as all the legal heirs of Chander Wali had not been impleaded as a party. 5,00,000 was filed. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, put in their appearance and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections and contested the petition. It was pleaded that the petition was not maintainable as all the legal heirs of Chander Wali had not been impleaded as a party. The accident was admitted, but it was denied that the driver of the bus was rash or negligent in driving the same. On the other hand, it was stated that Chander Wali, deceased tried to board the bus which was at a slow speed due to rush on the road, but he could not board the same as a result whereof he fell down and received injuries. It was further stated that Chander Wali was himself negligent, as a result whereof, the accident took place. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were duly served but were not present. They were proceeded against ex parte by the Tribunal. 5. In the replication filed by the appellants, they reasserted all the averments, contained in the petition and repudiated those contained in the written statement. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by the Tribunal: "(1) Whether Chander Wali died due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PUV 2423 by its driver Kewal Ram? OPP (2) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Relief?" 7. The parties led evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the same, as a result whereof, the accident took place leading to the death of Chander Wali, deceased. The Tribunal further held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 700 and the dependency of the claimants-appellants was to the tune of Rs. 400 per month. Accordingly, applying multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 76,800 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the award dated 8.3.1990 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, two appeals referred to hereinafter, were filed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. 76,800 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the award dated 8.3.1990 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, two appeals referred to hereinafter, were filed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants in Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn. v. Sudama Devi, F.A.O. No. 723 of 1990, contended that the Tribunal was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the same, as a result whereof, the accident took place, resulting into the death of Chander Wali. He further contended that bus was full of passengers and was at a slow speed when Chander Wali tried to board the same. He was unsuccessful in his attempt, as a result whereof, he fell down, resulting in injuries on his person and leading to his death. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal does not appear to be correct. Sudama Devi, AW 1, was present with Chander Wali at the relevant time. She in clear-cut terms stated that the bus came and the conductor was crying that it was going to Nabha. Her husband boarded the bus from the front door. She further stated that Chander Wali requested the driver to stop the bus as his wife remained on the road, as a result whereof, he slowed down the bus. When Chander Wali was coming out of the bus which was being driven at a slow speed, the driver all of a sudden increased the speed thereof, resulting in fall of her husband. She further stated that-rear wheel of the bus ran over her husband, as a result whereof, when he was being taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala he died on the way. Her statement during the course of cross-examination could not be successfully challenged. No doubt, she did not state the number of the bus as also the name of the driver thereof. However, the appellant-respondent in this appeal along with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in F.A.F.O. No. 673 of 1990, in their joint written statement admitted the accident, but only denied the rash or negligent act on the part of the driver. The statement of Sudama Devi, AW 1, is also corroborated by copy of the F.I.R., Exh. A1. However, the appellant-respondent in this appeal along with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in F.A.F.O. No. 673 of 1990, in their joint written statement admitted the accident, but only denied the rash or negligent act on the part of the driver. The statement of Sudama Devi, AW 1, is also corroborated by copy of the F.I.R., Exh. A1. When the bus slowed down and Chander Wali was allowed to come out of the same, it was the duty of the driver to ensure that he had already got down from the same. Only after ensuring that Chander Wali had got down from the bus, the driver could speed up the same. In the instant case, the driver of the bus did not do so and without ensuring as to whether Chander Wali had already got down from the same, which was at a very slow speed, suddenly increased the speed thereof. It, therefore, could be said that he was extremely negligent in driving the bus, as a result whereof accident took place, leading to the death of Chander Wali. There was no reason on the part of Sudama Devi, widow of the deceased, to depose falsely. Her presence at the time of the accident stood proved. The Tribunal was thus right in holding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus in question, resulting into injuries on the person of Chander Wali and leading to his death. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant-respondent in this appeal, being without any merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next contended by learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal that from the evidence of Sat Pal, RW 1, who was the conductor of the bus at the relevant time, it was proved that the driver thereof was neither rash nor negligent. He stated in his statement that the bus was at a slow speed. During the cross-examination, it was admitted by him that a criminal case under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the bus and he was facing trial therein. Even Kewal Ram, RW 2, driver of the bus, himself admitted that he was arrested at the spot. During the cross-examination, it was admitted by him that a criminal case under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the bus and he was facing trial therein. Even Kewal Ram, RW 2, driver of the bus, himself admitted that he was arrested at the spot. In case, Kewal Ram was not negligent in driving the bus at the time of accident, resulting into the death of Chander Wali, he could make a statement before the police officials in that regard. In case the police officials of the concerned police station were not ready to hear him, then he could have certainly approached higher police authorities that he had been falsely implicated in a criminal case and the accident did not take place on account of his rash or negligent act. He could also move an application before his higher officers that he was not at fault, but the accident took place on account of the negligent act of Chander Wali. He, however, did not do so and kept mum. His mere silence for a long time in itself is sufficient to prove that he was negligent in driving the bus at the relevant time, as a result whereof, the accident took place leading to the death of Chander Wali. The statements of Sat Pal, RW 1 and Kewal Ram, RW 2, were rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants being without any merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. The findings of the Tribunal, on issue No. 1 being correct, are affirmed. 12. In F.A.F.O. No. 673 of 1990, the counsel for appellants-claimants, contended that the Tribunal was wrong in awarding a meagre compensation. He further contended that the income of Chander Wali, at the time of his death was about Rs. 2,000 per month. He farther contended that the Tribunal was thus wrong in coming to the conclusion that the monthly income of Chander Wali was Rs. 700. He further contended that the multiplier in this case was required to be applied as 25, as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 25 years. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is partly correct. Sudama Devi, widow of the deceased, when appeared as AW 1, did not state about the income of the deceased. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is partly correct. Sudama Devi, widow of the deceased, when appeared as AW 1, did not state about the income of the deceased. Karnail Singh, AW 2 stated that Chander Wali was working with him as a labourer and was getting Rs. 30 per day. Shish Kumar, AW 3, no doubt, stated that Chander Wali was earning Rs. 40 to Rs. 50 daily by selling tea on a handcart. However, no document was produced on record to show that Chander Wali was selling tea on a handcart. On the other hand, it was proved from the statement of Karnail Singh, AW 2, that he was a labourer and earning Rs. 30 per day. In the year 1988, a labourer could certainly fetch at Rs. 30 per day as his wage. The income of Chander Wali at the time of his death could, therefore, be said to be Rs. 900 per month and not Rs. 700 per month as held by the Tribunal. He was aged about 25 years, as is proved from the evidence, on record. At the time of his death, he was having four minor children and wife. Since Chander Wali was to support a large family, he must be spending minimum amount for his maintenance. In my opinion, he was keeping Rs. 225 per month for his personal maintenance, thereby leaving a sum of Rs. 675 per month (round figure) for the maintenance of the appellants- claimants. Appellants-claimants thus were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,31,600 (Rs. 675 x 12 x 16 + Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses). The interest awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side. It is thus reduced to 9 per cent per annum. Amount of compensation is thus required to be enhanced to the extent indicated above. The findings of the Claims Tribunal on issue No. 2, are modified, as indicated above. 13. For the reasons recorded herein before, F.A.F.O. No. 673 of 1990 is partly accepted with no order as to costs and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,31,600 from Rs. 76,800 awarded by the Tribunal. All the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to receive compensation in equal shares. 13. For the reasons recorded herein before, F.A.F.O. No. 673 of 1990 is partly accepted with no order as to costs and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,31,600 from Rs. 76,800 awarded by the Tribunal. All the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to receive compensation in equal shares. They shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application till realisation of the amount of compensation. The shares of the appellants-claimants, Durga Devi, Laxmi Devi, Rajiv Kumar and Ranjit Kumar, who were minors at the time of filing the claim petition, shall be deposited in F.D.Rs. in their names, if they have not already attained majority and they shall be entitled to receive the same, on attaining majority. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of enhanced compensation. Any amount received by the appellants- claimants, under no fault liability clause, shall stand adjusted against the amount of compensation. 14. F.A.F.O. No. 723 of 1990, titled as Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn. v. Sudama Devi, is dismissed with no order as to costs.