Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 463 (PNJ)

Mamni WD/O of Deva Ram v. Kuldeep Singh

2011-02-04

K.KANNAN

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. K.Kannan, J.: (Oral).-- The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation in a case where the deceased was an agriculturist travelling in a three-wheeler and got killed in the collision that took place between a three-wheeler and the Maruti van. The claimants attributed the negligence to the driver of the Maruti van, but the Court found that there had been a composite negligence of the driver of three-wheeler and the Maruti van and while determining the compensation took the income of the deceased at Rs.1000/-, provided for a contribution to the family at Rs.750/- and adopted a multiplier of 10. The attempt of the claimant at the trial was to show that the deceased was 48 years of age, but the Tribunal took the evidence as stated in the Post Mortem Report, in the absence of any other credible evidence of age, at 51 years and determined the compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the income assessed was wholly wrong and it assumed the claimant to be an agricultural labourer earning about Rs.1000/- per month, when there was specific evidence given through PW4, who had given graphic details of the fact that he had 10 killas of land and he had given his land on batai to the deceased and at the time of his death, he had sown wheat in 7 killas of land and ½ of the share of the crops was paid to the owner himself. The evidence of PW4 was that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- from this source of income. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company would contend that this evidence was not acceptable and no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish such evidence. I will not take the absence of documentary proof to be important in a case where the owner of the land was prepared to give evidence that his land had been taken on lease and even at the time of death there was crop in an extent of about 7 killas of land which the deceased had sown. I will take the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per year and make a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.20,000/-. I will take the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per year and make a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.20,000/-. He was 51 years of age and the appropriate multiplier would be 11 which would mean that loss of dependency would be Rs.2,20,000/-. I will add Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- towards loss of love and affection for the two children, Rs.2500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses. In all the total compensation will be Rs.2,35,000/-. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 3. The said amount will be distributed equally amongst the wife and the children only and the liability shall be in the same manner as ordered by the Tribunal. 4. FAO No.819 of 1992 and FAO No.820 of 1992 are at the instance of the owner of the three-wheeler in which the deceased was travelling. FAO No.819 of 1992 is as regards the dismissal of the claim by the owner of the three-wheeler for the damag ecaused to the vehicle and FAO No.820 of 1992 is against the award casting 50% liability to the owner. I have already disposed of FAO No.525 of 1992 affirming the finding of the Tribunal as regards negligence. FAO No.819 of 1992 and FAO No.820 of 1992 are to be, therefore, dismissed on the same ground. As regards the dismissal of the application for damage to the vehicle, the Tribunal rejected it on the ground that the vehicle was a mechanical contrivance made by the owner with no registration number, no insurance and no permit. It is strange that such a vehicle should have been on road without inviting the attention of the police authorities for taking appropriate action. The owner was guilty of every violation possible under the provisions of the Act and the dismissal of the petition was, therefore, perfectly justified. 5. Both the appeals by the owner are consequently dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------