Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1988 (PNJ)

Gurpal Singh v. S. S. Nehra

2011-11-04

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2011
JUDGMENT VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. - This is an appeal brought by the claimant Gurpal Singh for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short 'the Tribunal) vide award dated 16.07.2009. The claimant has brought the petition under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short 'the Act') for compensation on account of the death of his son Jarnail Singh in a road side accident that took place on 23.07.2008. The case of the claimant is as under:- 2. On 23.07.2008 Jarnail Singh, deceased alongwith his friend Amarjit Singh was riding a motorcycle bearing registration no.PB-08-BB/8572. He was going from his village Dheena to village Jandusingha for some personal work. Jarnail Singh was driving the motorcycle. He was followed by Karnail Singh on another motorcycle at about 9 AM. When they were near village Patara, a mini bus bearing no.TO-4P016048 driven by a clean shaven person in army uniform came from the opposite side. It was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it had hit the motorcycle of Jarnail Singh, on account of which, he suffered multiple injuries. He was taken to Johal Hospital for medical treatment. The name of the driver of aforesaid mini bus came to be known lateron as S.S. Nehra son of Jagmehal Singh. It is claimed that Jarnail Singh was aged 31 years, was unmarried and was running business of sale/purchase of automobiles. He is said to have filed income tax return in a sum of Rs.1,12,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/-has been claimed to have been spent on the treatment of the deceased. Therefore, the claim petition has been brought for seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondents no.1 and 2 had filed a joint written statement questioning the maintainability of the petition as well as claiming the same to be bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. It is claimed that the vehicle of respondent no.2 was damaged on account of the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Jarnail Singh and a sum of Rs.12,550/-is recoverable from the legal heirs of the deceased. It is admitted that respondent no.1 S.S. Nehra had been driving the mini bus. It is claimed that the vehicle of respondent no.2 was damaged on account of the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Jarnail Singh and a sum of Rs.12,550/-is recoverable from the legal heirs of the deceased. It is admitted that respondent no.1 S.S. Nehra had been driving the mini bus. It was, however, denied that the same was being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The FIR lodged about the accident is said to be false. 4. Respondents no.3 and 4 are owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Respondent no.3 had been proceeded against ex-parte. However, respondent no.4 has filed written statement claiming that Jarnail Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal on 09.01.2009:- “1-Whether deceased Jarnail Singh son of Gurpal Singh died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.7.2008 at about 4.00 am with motorcycle bearing registration no.PB-08/8572 driven by respondent no.1 S.S. Nehra rashly and negligently ? OPP 2. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Whether deceased was not holding valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident ? OPR (4) 5. Relief” 6. Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has made the impugned award. 7. Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant has brought the appeal. 8. I have heard Shri K.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for Union of India and Mr. Suvir Dewan, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and have gone through the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has held the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/-per month treating him as a labourer. According to him, learned Tribunal did not place reliance on the income tax return for the assessment year ending on 31.03.2007 for the reason that it had been filed on 23.07.2008, the date of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has held the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/-per month treating him as a labourer. According to him, learned Tribunal did not place reliance on the income tax return for the assessment year ending on 31.03.2007 for the reason that it had been filed on 23.07.2008, the date of accident. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has observed in para no.15 of the award that there is no income tax return or other document of the income of the deceased prior to that. According to him, learned Tribunal has, thus, committed grave error in ignoring the return of income tax for the assessment year 2006-07. He has drawn my attention to the statement of Hardip Singh, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Office, Jalandhar, examined as PW-3 and the return of income tax Ex.PW3/1 for the assessment year 2006-07, which was filed with the income tax authorities on 09.06.2006. According to him, this document was an income tax return for the period prior to the death of Jarnail Singh and this document clearly proves that the income claimed by Jarnail Singh to have been derived from his business was Rs.1,10,000/-much prior to the accident. He has submitted that there is no reason for discarding this document. According to him, the compensation should have been assessed taking the annual income of the deceased at least at Rs.1,10,000/-. According to him, the compensation consequently deserves to be enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and the same does not deserve to be enhanced. According to her, learned Tribunal has even taken into account the expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. For discarding the return of income filed in a sum of Rs.1,14,996/-, learned Tribunal has given the reason that the same has been filed on the very date of accident. It is difficult to believe that income tax return would be filed on the date of the accident itself to create false evidence of income. The person who met with the accident was not in a position to file the income tax return or even instruct his counsel to file the same after meeting with the accident. Therefore, learned Tribunal should not have discarded this income tax return. 12. The person who met with the accident was not in a position to file the income tax return or even instruct his counsel to file the same after meeting with the accident. Therefore, learned Tribunal should not have discarded this income tax return. 12. However, the reason for taking the income of the deceased by learned Tribunal at Rs.3000/-per month treating him as a labourer has been that there is no income tax return or other document of the deceased prior to that. Learned Tribunal is factually incorrect here. He ignored the document Ex.PW3/1, which was a return filed on 09.06.2006 much prior to the accident in question. So the income of the deceased could very well be taken as Rs.1,10,000/-per annum. It being a case of death of an unmarried person, the claimant being the father of the deceased, his dependency is to be taken as ½ of this amount. The same comes to Rs.55,000/-per annum and multiplying this amount with 8, the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal about which no objection has been raised on either side, I find a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/-to be due to the claimant as compensation on the death of Jarnail Singh. A sum of Rs.1,40,000/-allowed as compensation for expenses in treatment for the deceased before his death and a sum of Rs.10,000/-for loss of estate and funeral expenses are to be simultaneously allowed to the claimant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs.5,90,000/-as compensation for the death of his son in the aforesaid accident. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,40,000/-to Rs.5,90,000/-, which shall be payable alongwith interest as per the direction of learned Tribunal given in his award. Appeal allowed.