Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 681 (PNJ)

Neena alias Parveena Devi v. Pala Ram

2012-05-08

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. By this single judgment, this Court shall dispose of the aforementioned three appeals i.e FAO No. 1210 of 2011 Neena alias Parveena Devi & others Vs. Pala Ram & others; FAO No. 6951 of 2010 Joginder alias Sandeep Vs. Pala Ram & others; and FAO No.2375 of 2011 Sat Pal Vs. Pala Ram & Others having been arisen out of the same accident that took place on 28.6.2008. The appellants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal on 8.6.2010 on account of death of Ram Dia and injuries sustained by Joginder in a vehicular accident that took place on 28.6.2008. FAO No. 2375 of 2011 preferred by the claimant Sat Pal owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-40B-2251, being driven by deceased Ram Dia at the time of the accident, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of damage caused to the motor cycle. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.6.2008, Joginder along with uncle Ram Dia had left Hindustan Spinning Mills situated on G.T. Road near Madhuban HAP Complex, Karnal on motorcycle bearing registration No HR-40B-2251 being driven by deceased Ram Dia. When they reached near HAP complex, a tractor bearing registration No.HR-05F-3709 being driven by Pala Ram in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle of deceased Ram Dia. Consequently, Joginder and Ram Dia received serious injuries. Ram Dia, the injured was removed to General Hospital Karnal, being his critical condition, where he succumbed to his injuries. The claimants-appellants preferred claim petitions bearing MACT Case No.136 of 2009 Joginder alias Sandeep Vs.. Pala Ram & others; MACT Case No.137 of 2009 Neena alias Parveena Devi & others Vs, Pala Ram & others; before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal Karnal, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 8.6.2010 awarding Rs.38,082/- and 8,84,000/-on account of injuries sustained by Joginder and death of Ram Dia respectively in a vehicular accident that took place on 28.6.2008. MACT Case No.138 of 2009 Sat Pal Vs.. MACT Case No.138 of 2009 Sat Pal Vs.. Pala Ram & others preferred by the claimant Sat Pal, who is the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-40B-2251, being driven by Ram Dia at the time of the accident, seeking compensation on account of damage caused to the motor cycle in which the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,000 in favour of the claimant-appellant Sat pal. Feeling dissatisfied, by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Karnal, the appellants came up in the present appeals seeking enhancement of compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in claim petition 137 of 2009 ( FAO No.1210 of 2011) Neena alias Parveena Devi & others Vs, Pala Ram & others, compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased Ram Dia, at Rs.6000/- per month. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record with regard to the income tax returns of the deceased as well as the land owned by the deceased in the right perspective. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has also made wrong deduction which ought to have been 1/5th instead of 1/4th, keeping in view the dependents of the deceased being five in number. He also contends that the amount awarded under different heads is also on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that adequate and sufficient amount has already been granted by the Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. From the perusal of the record it emerges that deceased Ram Dia, was doing business of poultry farm and bee keeping. He used to do supervisory work there, and after his death the business of Poultry farm and bee keeping is still there. Moreover, in the income tax return Ex-P-5 placed on record by the claimants, the income of the deceased was shown to be Rs.1,00,000 per annum. Therefore, keeping in view the income tax returns of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. Moreover, in the income tax return Ex-P-5 placed on record by the claimants, the income of the deceased was shown to be Rs.1,00,000 per annum. Therefore, keeping in view the income tax returns of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. The deduction to the extent of 1/4th made by the learned Tribunal is also correct, keeping in view the number of claimants being 5, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. In view of the above, FAO No.1210 of 2011 is dismissed having been failed on merits. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not want to press the other two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 6951 of 2010 and 2375 of 2011. Accordingly both the appeals bearing FAO Nos. 6951 of 2010 and 2375 of 2011 are also dismissed as not pressed.