Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1741 (PNJ)

Santosh v. Dhup Singh

2012-12-04

K.KANNAN

body2012
K. Kannan, J.— (Oral) 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident, where on account of collision between two vehicles namely a truck and jeep, the jeep driver and a passenger in the jeep died. The claim arising out of the death of a passenger is the subject of the appeal in FAO No. 771 of 1993. The appeal arising out of a claim prosecuted by the representative of the deceased driver of the jeep is a subject of appeal in FAO No. 943 of 1993. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal found that the driver of the jeep himself had contributed to the accident. taking note of the fact that it was a straight road and the accident was the result of a head on collision. However, the Court took note of the fact that the driver of the truck had fled from the scene of the occurrence and apportioned higher percentage of culpability to the driver of the truck at 70% while the driver of the jeep was said to have contributed to the accident of 30%. 2. In assessing the compensation for passenger in the jeep, the Tribunal was required to consider the fact that the deceased was owner of five acres of land and it was also stated that he held buffaloes as owner and was carrying on dairy business as well. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.1000/- per month, made deduction of ¼ towards personal expenses, took the contribution to the family at Rs.750/- per month, adopted a multiplier of 13, and determined the compensation, partially abating the claim to the extent of 30% in view of its finding that there was a case of contributory negligence. 3. As far as a passenger of the jeep is concerned, it was a case of composite negligence of drivers of two vehicles and no part of the claim could have been allowed to be abated. The representatives of the deceased were entitled to secure the entire amount of compensation against any one of the tort feasors, leaving it to the other party that is made liable to seek for contribution to the extent to which the culpability has to be apportioned, namely of the owner of the jeep and the insurer. The representatives of the deceased were entitled to secure the entire amount of compensation against any one of the tort feasors, leaving it to the other party that is made liable to seek for contribution to the extent to which the culpability has to be apportioned, namely of the owner of the jeep and the insurer. The determination of compensation for the passengers should have therefore, suffered no abatement in the manner done in the award of the Tribunal. Even in the manner of determination of compensation, I would find the amount assessed as income for owner of five acres of land at Rs.1000/- per month is grossly low. I will take note of the fact it would have cost at least Rs.3000/- to Rs.3500/- per month as the loss of managerial skills of an agriculturist. The wife and minor children could not have carried on without assistance of some person and also incurred the expenses. Therefore, I would quantify the average value of the managerial service at Rs.3500/- per month, make a deduction of ¼ and apply a multiplier of 14 as contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of “Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” (2009), 6 SCC 121. The children were required to be compensated for loss of love and affection and wife would require to be compensated for loss of consortium. Loss to estate must also be provided for funeral expenses at Rs.3,000/- provided shall be retained. In FAO No. 771 of 1993, I would tabulate the various heads of the claim possible under the following:- FATAL ACCIDENT Age: Pala Ram 45 years Occupation Agriculturist FATAL ACCIDENT Claimants Wife, 3 minor children Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount(Rs,) Amount(Rs. ) 1 Income 1000 3500 2 Add, % of Increase 30% 50% nil 3 Deduction (½, 1/3, ¼, 1/5) ¼ 1\4 4 Multiplicand 750 x 12 2625 x 12 5 Multiplier 13 14 6 Loss of dependence 4,41,000 7 Medical expenses 8 Loss of Consortium, Love and affection 12500 9 Loss to estate 2500 10 Funeral Expenses 3000 3000 Total 1,20,000 4,59,000/- The entire amount of compensation will be payable by the insurer and shared amongst the claimants. The addition over what has already been awarded will attract interest @ 7. 5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The addition over what has already been awarded will attract interest @ 7. 5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The insurer will have an independent right to file a fresh civil suit against the owner and insurer of the jeep and seek for contribution to the extent to which the liability is apportioned in the independent proceedings. FAO No. 943 of 1993 was with reference to death of Dharam Vir who was aged 30 years leaving behind his widow and three minor children. The income of the driver was taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 1000/- per month but I would take the average income providing for prospect of increase of income at Rs. 3500/- per month. I would apply instead of multiplier 14 multiplier of 17. the compensation shall be reworked and I would tabulate the various heads of the claim possible under the following:- FATAL ACCIDENT Age: Dharam Vir 30 years Occupation Claimants Wife, 3 minor children Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount(Rs,) Amount(Rs. ) 1 Income 1000 3500 2 Add, % of Increase 30% 50% nil 3 Deduction (½, 1/3, ¼, 1/5) ¼ 1\4 4 Multiplicand 750 x 12 2625 x 12 5 Multiplier 14 17 6 Loss of dependence 5,35,500 7 Medical expenses 8 Loss of Consortium, Love and affection 12500 9 Loss to estate 2500 10 Funeral Expenses 3000 Total 1,28,000 5,53,500/- The amount shall suffer an abatement to the extent of 30%, viz, the percentage of liability for the contributory negligence. The claimant will therefore, be entitled to 70% of the amount viz, Rs.3,87,450/-. The amount shall be distributed equally amongst the claimants. The liability shall be on the insurer of the vehicle of the truck which had contributed to the said extent. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent. The insurer is at liberty to bring its own independent action for contribution of 30% against the owner of the jeep and the insurer, treating this order as giving rise to a fresh cause of action.