Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 630 (PNJ)

Krishan Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2009-04-01

T.P.S.MANN

body2009
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. Aggrieved of the award dated 18.7.2002 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby the claimants/ appellants were granted an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Gurcharan Dass in a motor vehicular accident, which compensation, according to them, was highly inadequate, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 2. On 10.9.2000, Gurcharan Dass, since deceased, and a few others, were travelling in Punjab Roadways bus No. PB-12-C-9071. When the bus reached near village Roorki, it overtook one truck going ahead of it. In the meantime, another bus bearing No. RJ-31-P-0217 came from Chandigarh side and struck against the bus in which the deceased and others were travelling. A car and a scooter, which were following the Punjab Roadways bus, also struck against the said bus, as a result of which many persons died. Pleading that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Punjab Roadways bus No. PB-12-C-9071 by its driver, who also died in the accident, the appellants, who are widow, daughter and two sons of Gurcharan Dass- deceased filed a claim petition, as according to them, they were dependant upon the deceased. Two more claim petitions were also filed, one by Sohan Lal injured and another by Jyoti Sharma, whose father Sham Lal Sharma also died in the accident. All the three claim petitions were clubbed and decided together. 3. The claim petitions were opposed by the respondents by taking preliminary objections that the petitions were bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owner and insurance company of bus bearing No. RJ-31-P-0217 had not been impleaded as a party. On merits, the factum of registration of FIR against the driver of bus No. PB-12-C-9071 was admitted, but it was pleaded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. RJ-31P- 0217, which was being plied on the date of occurrence in an illegal manner and did not have a valid permit. In fact, the driver of bus No. RJ-31-P-0217 lost control over the bus and collided with the Punjab Roadways bus. Accordingly, it was prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed. 4. The following issues were framed in the claim petition filed by the appellants and by Jyoti Sharma :- 1. In fact, the driver of bus No. RJ-31-P-0217 lost control over the bus and collided with the Punjab Roadways bus. Accordingly, it was prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed. 4. The following issues were framed in the claim petition filed by the appellants and by Jyoti Sharma :- 1. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased respectively ? OPP. 2. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. PB-12-C-9071, if so, its effect ? OPP. 3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom of the respondents ? OPR. 4. Relief. 5. Issues were also framed separately in the claim petition filed by Sohan Lal. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-12-C-9071 by its driver and during the course of the accident, Gurcharan Dass and Sham Lal Sharma died, while Sohan Lal sustained injuries. After taking into consideration the fact that Gurcharan Dass deceased was working as a Supervisor in the Market Committee and drawing gross salary of Rs. 12,946/- and after deductions his carry home salary was Rs. 8,560/-, the dependency was calculated as Rs. 6,000/- per month, as, according to the learned Tribunal, the deceased must be spending at least Rs. 2,560/- per month on himself. The annual dependency was worked out at Rs. 72,000/-. The deceased was 56 years of age as was mentioned in the post mortem report and, therefore, multiplier of 4 was applied so as to award an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- to the appellants as compensation. Hence, the present appeal. 7. The short question in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation. 8. It stands established from the salary certificate Ex. P.9 that deceased Gurcharan Dass was drawing gross salary of Rs. 12,946/-. Out of the same, he had been paying Rs. 3,000/- as G.P.F., Rs. 500/- for house building loan, Rs. 500/- for wheat loan, Rs. 60/- as G.I.S. and Rs. 230/- as scooter loan. All these amounts, which the deceased was returning/paying to his employer by way of deductions, could not have been taken out while calculating the net income which the deceased was getting. 3,000/- as G.P.F., Rs. 500/- for house building loan, Rs. 500/- for wheat loan, Rs. 60/- as G.I.S. and Rs. 230/- as scooter loan. All these amounts, which the deceased was returning/paying to his employer by way of deductions, could not have been taken out while calculating the net income which the deceased was getting. The G.P.F. amount of Rs. 3,000/-, which was being deducted per month was to be later on paid to the employee or his family members. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 534 : (2002)6 Supreme Court Cases 281, the Honble Supreme Court held that any receipt under social security system is not to be counted as a deduction for calculating the net income as the claimants were otherwise entitled to receive it irrespective of accidental death. The relevant observations are as follows :- "According to the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, it is clear that amount on account of social security as may have been received must have nexus or relation with the accidental injury or death, so far as to be deductible from the amount of compensation. There must be some co-relation between the amount received and the accidental death or it may be in the same sphere, absence (sic) the amount received shall not be deducted from the amount of compensation. Thus, the amount received on account of insurance policy of the deceased cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation though no doubt the receipt of the insurance amount is accelerated due to premature death of the insured. So far as other items in respect of which learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged for example, some allowance paid to the children, and Mrs. Patricia Mahajan under the social security system, no co-relation of those receipts with the accidental death has been shown much less established. Apart from the fact that contribution comes from different sources for constituting the fund out of which payment on account of social security system is made, one of the constituent of the fund is tax which is deducted from income for the purpose. Apart from the fact that contribution comes from different sources for constituting the fund out of which payment on account of social security system is made, one of the constituent of the fund is tax which is deducted from income for the purpose. We feel that the High Court has rightly disallowed any deduction on account of receipts under the Insurance Policy and other receipts under the social security system which the claimant would have also otherwise been entitled to receive irrespective of accidental death of Dr. Mahajan. If the proposition "receipts from whatever source" is interpreted so widely that it may cover all the receipts, which may come into the hands of the claimants, in view of the mere death of the victim, it would only defeat the purpose of the Act providing for just compensation on account of accidental death. Such gains, may be on account of saving or other investment etc. made by deceased, would not go to the benefit of the wrongdoer and the claimant should not be left worse off, if he had never taken an insurance policy or had not made investments for future returns. We therefore, do not allow any deduction as pressed by the Insurance Company on account of receipts of insurance policy and social security benefits received by the claimants." 9. Similarly, the wheat loan, which was being returned by the deceased at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month was to last only for a couple of months more and, therefore, this amount could not be deducted from the gross salary of the employee so as to arrive at the net salary. Only the amount of Rs. 500/- being returned as house building loan, Rs. 230/- as scooter loan and Rs. 60/- being paid towards G.I.S., the total amount being Rs. 790/-, could be legitimately deducted from the gross salary of the employee so as to hold that the net salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,156/- per month. 10. The family of the deceased consisted of his widow, two sons and one unmarried daughter. It has appeared in the statement of PW3 Krishan Kaur- claimant that her daughter Manmohan Kaur was 25 years of age and her son Pavitar Singh was aged about 23 years while the youngest son Paramjit Singh aged 19 years. All the three children were unmarried. It has appeared in the statement of PW3 Krishan Kaur- claimant that her daughter Manmohan Kaur was 25 years of age and her son Pavitar Singh was aged about 23 years while the youngest son Paramjit Singh aged 19 years. All the three children were unmarried. In her cross- examination, she admitted that her son Pavitar Singh was running a shop. Therefore, it may not be possible to hold that Pavitar Singh was dependant upon his late father Gurcharan Dass. However, as no appeal had been filed by the respondents against the impugned award, this Court would hesitate to grant any interference to the extent of granting of compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to Pavitar Singh, son of the deceased. At the same time, Pavitar Singh could be excluded so as to count the size of the family, who were dependant upon deceased Gurcharan Dass. As Manmohan Kaur and Paramjit Singh, daughter and son, respectively, of the deceased, were major. They have to be treated as independent units, and so also their mother, i.e. Krishan kaur. The 4th unit of the family was the deceased himself. In such a situation, the dependency has to be calculated as 3/4th out of Rs. 12,156/- i.e. Rs. 9,117/- per month, rounded to Rs. 9100/-. The annual dependency would, therefore, be Rs. 1,09,200/-. 11. As regards the multiplier, by taking the age of the deceased to be 56 years, learned Tribunal held that multiplier of 4 could reasonably be applied. As per Schedule II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , in the case of deceased being aged 55 to 60 years, multiplier of 8 has to be applied. At the same time, it has to be seen that there is no hard and fast rule to apply such a multiplier as provided by Schedule II. This is only to be taken as guidelines, while considering the appropriate compensation to be paid to the claimants. To my mind, it would be reasonable to apply the multiplier of 5 so as to determine the amount of compensation as Rs. 5,46,000/-. 12. Apart from the amount of compensation, the claimants ought to be paid an amount of Rs. 7,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to Smt Krishan Kaur claimant as loss of consortium. To my mind, it would be reasonable to apply the multiplier of 5 so as to determine the amount of compensation as Rs. 5,46,000/-. 12. Apart from the amount of compensation, the claimants ought to be paid an amount of Rs. 7,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to Smt Krishan Kaur claimant as loss of consortium. Adding these figures to the compensation, the total amount of compensation which the claimants deserve to be paid is arrived at Rs. 5,60,000/-, i.e. enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal by Rs. 2,72,000/-. 13. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,88,000/- to Rs. 5,60,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be paid to Smt. Krishan Kaur claimant only, being widow of Gurcharan Dass. She shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the enhanced amount. Both the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation. No costs.