Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1851 (PNJ)

Commandant v. Saroj Rani

2012-12-18

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.(Oral) - Aggrieved by the negligence attributed to the driver of the appellants, the appellants have come forward with the present appeal, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. The claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal have come forward with the cross objections. 2. The claimants have alleged that on 13.07.2004 when Daya Krishan was proceeded on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CH-01-G-0134 from the side of Chandigarh to village Hallo Majra at a slow speed keeping his left side, a Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No. HR-68-1808 driven by respondent No. 1 M.Ubaidu Duttu in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn hit Daya Krishan from behind and as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and ultimately he claimed to death on 15.07.2004. The claimants alleged that the deceased Daya Krishan who was 40 years old was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as salary in spite of the operation conducted on him in PGI, Chandigarh on 13.07.2004, Daya Krishan could not be suffered and he succumbed to head injury. The claimants have sought for compensation as prayed for. 3. The claimants herein should figured as respondents in the claim petition contended that the National Highway No. 21 leading from Zirakpur to Chandigarh was closed for vehicular traffic due to repair work on the road. The traffic was plying only one side on the road. It is contended that the Swaraj Mazda, mini bus driven by its driver at a normal speed keeping his left Daya Krishan even without wearing head gear, suddenly took sharp turn from the inner side of the Chowk without blowing any horn and hit the outer side of the Swaraj Mazda. He was shifted from the place of accident to the hospital by the CRPF doctor and the other officials who travel in the vehicle. He submitted that the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court having relied upon the evidence of PW-3, Gurcharanjit Singh and RW-4 Didar Singh and rejecting the testimony of RW-1, Rajesh Baba Saheb Kedar, RW-2 Ubaida M.Kuttu and RW-3 Dr. V.K.Gopal, Medical Officer held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swaraj Mazda, Mini Bus. 4. The trial court having relied upon the evidence of PW-3, Gurcharanjit Singh and RW-4 Didar Singh and rejecting the testimony of RW-1, Rajesh Baba Saheb Kedar, RW-2 Ubaida M.Kuttu and RW-3 Dr. V.K.Gopal, Medical Officer held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swaraj Mazda, Mini Bus. The Tribunal applied the Multiplier of 13 and took 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased determined the loss of dependency. Nothing was awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of Estate. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal having completely ignored the evidence of RW-1 to RW-3, rendered a verdict that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swaraj Mazda, referring to the verdict of the Criminal Court and an inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, she would submit that the driver of Swaraj Mazda was relieved from the negligence attributed to him. The Criminal Court gave a clean chit to the driver of Swaraj Mazda. It is a further submission that RW-4, Didar Singh has come out with a totally contradictory version, one before the inquiry officer, another version with the criminal court and another version before the Tribunal and that therefore, his evidence cannot be given the weightage. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the evidence of RW-4 was not put to challenge by the appellants herein. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence of PW-3 and RW-4 and rejected the evidence of RW- 1 and RW-3. He would also submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in not applying the correct multiplier. He would submit that on the fact that the deceased had left behind the 5 dependents, the Tribunal should have been deducted 1/4th with the income of the deceased towards his personal living expenses. It has further been submitted that 30% of increase should have been given in the earning capacity of the deceased towards his future prospects. He would also submit that from meager amount was awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Nothing was awarded to loss of estate he would submit. 7. It has further been submitted that 30% of increase should have been given in the earning capacity of the deceased towards his future prospects. He would also submit that from meager amount was awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Nothing was awarded to loss of estate he would submit. 7. The verdict posted by the Criminal Court in connection with the criminal case has levelled against the driver of the offending vehicle was placed on record by the appellants. In a criminal case, the evidence should be held in, to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt but in a Civil Forum where the question of civil negligence is to be established, a different yardstick is adopted in weighing the evidence adduced by the parties just because the Criminal Court relieved of the accused as the charge was not established beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be relieved of the civil negligence attributed to him in a civil case. Independent of the verdict in a Criminal Court, the Civil Court will have to weigh the evidence adduced and come to a conclusion whether the civil negligence attributed was established as against the person concern. Therefore, in my opinion, the verdict of the Criminal Court, relieving the driver of the offending vehicle from the charge of rash and negligent does not wipe out his liability in a civil case. 8. PW-3 Gurcharanjit Singh an eye witness to the occurrence has categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda, Mini Bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the victim who drive a two wheeler was hit and as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. There is no reason to reject the eye witness account of PW-3. The trial court has rightly relied upon the evidence of PW-3. 9. RW-4, Didar Singh is found to be the author of the First Information Report. He might have turned hostile before the criminal court. He might have also turned out with different version before the inquiry officer but the evidence given before the Tribunal is found to be quite reliable, in the sense he has completely corroborated his version in the first information report. Therefore, his testimony cannot be doubted by the Court of law. 10. He might have also turned out with different version before the inquiry officer but the evidence given before the Tribunal is found to be quite reliable, in the sense he has completely corroborated his version in the first information report. Therefore, his testimony cannot be doubted by the Court of law. 10. In fact RW-4, Didar Singh was brought by the appellants herein for examination on their side. He has come out with a totally damaging version against the appellants, deposing that it was only the driver of the offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda who drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a speed of 60 Kms in a round about and cause to the accident. RW-4 was not treated as hostile and stopped to cause examination by the appellants herein. In other words, the evidence of RW-4 was not at all put to challenge against the appellants herein. Therefore, his evidence can not also be ignored by the Court. The evidence of RW-4 corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 would go to establish that it was only the driver of the offending Swaraj Mazda who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused to the accident. Coming to the evidence of PW-1 and RW-3 the Tribunal has rightly rejected the testimony as they have come out with contradictory version as to wearing of the helmet by the victim even otherwise I find their testimony is an interested one and therefore, much credence cannot be attached, more especially in the face of the tallying evidence given by RW-3 and PW-1. 11. The Court is not concerned with the report submitted by the inquiry officer appointed by the appellant as regards the rash and negligence attribute to the driver of the offending vehicle. Even otherwise, the inquiry officer was not established to speak about the inquiry reports exhibited before the courts. The Court is concerned with the evidence adduced before the Court and not the statement given before the inquiry officer. The Tribunal has rightly ignored the inquiry report exhibited in this case. Therefore, I have no hestiation to hold that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle namely Swaraj Mazda. 12. The Tribunal has rightly ignored the inquiry report exhibited in this case. Therefore, I have no hestiation to hold that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle namely Swaraj Mazda. 12. Coming to the claim of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and the challenge thereto, made by the claimants, I find that the deceased was aged 44-45 years old at the time when the accident took place. He was serving as a Patwari earning a sum of Rs.11,947/- per month. The Tribunal fairly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month but as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors/claimants the Tribunal in terms of verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(6) SCC 121 the Multiplier of 14 instead of 13 should have been applied and in case all the deceased leaving behind 5 dependents the Tribunal should have been deducted only 1/4th income of the deceased towards his personal living expenses. 13. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors a very meagre sum of Rs.2500/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Nothing was awarded towards loss of estate. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, a sum of Rs.(12000 + 30% thereof being (3,600/-) = Rs.15,600/- - 1/4th thereof, being (Rs.3900/-) = Rs.11700 x 12 = Rs.140400 x 14 = Rs.19,65,600/- has been awarded towards the loss of dependancy, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium of first claimant, Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate. The total amount awarded would come out to be Rs.1985000/-. Aggregate with interest 7.5% on the enhanced amount of the compensation awarded. The rate of interest awarded and the mode of apportionment adopted by the Tribunal stands confirmed. 15. As a result, FAO No. 832 of 2008 stands dismissed, Cross objection No. 20-CII stands allowed in part. The appellants shall deposit the amount already stayed by this Court and the enhanced portion of compensation awarded by this Court within three months from the date of this order. ---------0.B.S.0------------