Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1231 (PNJ)

KAMALJIT KAUR v. PEPSU ROAD TRANS. CORPN.

2013-09-12

NAWAB SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : NAWAB SINGH, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned four appeals, filed against two separate awards dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 6 and 7 of 2008, arising out of same accident. F.A.O. Nos. 6100 and 6484 of 2011 have been filed by the claimants, that is, parents of two deceased, viz., Jaspreet Singh and Karamjit. F.A.O. Nos. 6185 and 6186 of 2011 have been filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (for short 'PRTC'), owner of the bus No. PB 11-N 0754 (for short 'the offending bus'). 2. The facts are these: On 20.2.2008, Jaspreet Singh (deceased) was riding pillion on motor cycle No. PB 10-BT 2975, driven by one Raman Kumar. When they reached near Hotel K. Mall Signal Lights Chowk, Gian Singh Rada Market, Bus Stand-Gill Chowk Road, there was a traffic red light. Raman Kumar stopped the motor cycle to wait for green signal to go. Karamjit (deceased) was on scooter No. PB 10-V 3281 and was also waiting for the green signal at the same place. The offending bus came from bus stand Ludhiana, being driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner by Jagtar Singh, respondent, and, firstly, it struck against a car bearing No. 9590 (complete number not mentioned) and then scooter of Karamjit and later against motor cycle on which Jaspreet Singh was riding. The driver of the bus lost his control and hit many vehicles on the signal lights point. A number of persons suffered multiple injuries. Unfortunately, Jaspreet Singh and Karamjit died on the spot. 3. F.I.R. No. 43 dated 20.2.2008 (Exh. P1) was recorded under sections 304-A, etc., Indian Penal Code in Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. Post-mortem examination was conducted upon the bodies of Jaspreet Singh and Karamjit in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. 4. Parents of Jaspreet Singh and Karamjit filed separate claim applications u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal. 5. In case of death of Jaspreet Singh, it was pleaded that he was 17 years old (date of birth is mentioned as 27.9.1991 in the matriculation certificate, Exh. P4). He was a bachelor and student of Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic College, Ludhiana (Exhs. P3 and P6). 6. The parents of Karamjit pleaded that he was a divorcee and aged about 32 years. P4). He was a bachelor and student of Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic College, Ludhiana (Exhs. P3 and P6). 6. The parents of Karamjit pleaded that he was a divorcee and aged about 32 years. He was working as a Supervisor with Bhartiya Crainer Nigam Limited. Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana and drawing salary of Rs. 7,000 per month. 7. The Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the parents of Jaspreet Singh and Rs. 6,18,000 to the parents of Karamjit. The interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of claim applications till actual realization. 8. In appeals filed by PRTC (F.A.O. Nos. 6185 and 6186 of 2011), the only submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 50,000 each was paid to the parents in both the cases as ex gratia grant and later on, since they were awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, so the amount of Rs. 50,000 be refunded to PRTC or adjusted towards the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. PRTC is a corporate body, which is owned by the State Government. The accident occurred in a most horrifying manner. Both the deceased were sitting on their respective vehicles, which were in stationary position, waiting for green light at signal light point. The offending bus came from behind and hit a number of vehicles. Jaspreet Singh and Raramjit, who were aged about 17 years and 32 years, respectively, were knocked down, as a result thereof they died on the spot. The ex gratia grant was given to the parents of the deceased as an immediate relief by PRTC, which was a good gesture and is appreciable. It was a compassionate monetary assistance to the parents of the deceased, which, in the considered opinion of this court, should not be deducted out of the amount of compensation. Hence, this court finds no merit in the appeals filed by PRTC. 10. Coming now to the appeals filed by the parents of Jaspreet Singh (F.A.O. No. 6100 of 2011), he was aged about 17 years as per the matriculation certificate (Exh. P4) and studying in Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic College, Ludhiana, which fact is apparent from identity card (Exh. P3) and certificate (Exh. P6). The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,00,000 as lump sum compensation to his parents. P4) and studying in Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic College, Ludhiana, which fact is apparent from identity card (Exh. P3) and certificate (Exh. P6). The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,00,000 as lump sum compensation to his parents. The Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender and Others, AIR 2007 SC 324 has held as under: "Determination of damages for the loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing, but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In case, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents." 11. In the present case, the parents lost their son, who was aged about 17 years and proceeding towards his career in technical field. The claimants-parents were in the age group of 40-45 years, as is mentioned in the claim application. On considering all these aspects, this court is of the considered opinion that a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 would be just and fair, besides a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards funeral and transportation charges. Thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,10,000, that is, Rs. 1,10,000 (Rs. 5,10,000 - Rs. 4,00,000) over and above the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 12. So far as the case of death of Karamjit is concerned (F.A.O. No. 6484 of 2011), the Claims Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 7,000 per month, that is, Rs. 84,000 per annum, as pleaded by his parents-claimants. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 56,000 (Rs. 84,000 - Rs. 28,000). Considering the age of claimant-mother, multiplier of 11 was applied and loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 6,16,000 (Rs. 56,000 x 11). Besides, a sum of Rs. 2,000 was awarded as funeral expenses. In all, a sum of Rs. 6,18,000 was awarded by the Tribunal. 13. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the amount of compensation was rightly determined by the Tribunal, except that the amount of Rs. 2,000 awarded towards funeral expenses is on lower side. Hence, this court awards Rs. 2,000 was awarded as funeral expenses. In all, a sum of Rs. 6,18,000 was awarded by the Tribunal. 13. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the amount of compensation was rightly determined by the Tribunal, except that the amount of Rs. 2,000 awarded towards funeral expenses is on lower side. Hence, this court awards Rs. 10,000 under this head, that is, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,000 over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In view of above, F.A.O. Nos. 6185 and 6186 of 2011 are dismissed being devoid of merit. F.A.O. Nos. 6100 and 6484 are partly allowed. The impugned award in case of death of Jaspreet Singh (F.A.O. No. 6100 of 2011) is modified to the extent that compensation amount is enhanced by Rs. 1,10,000 and in the case of death of Karamjit (F.A.O. No. 6484 of 2011) the impugned award is modified to the extent that compensation amount is enhanced by Rs. 8,000. The interest on the enhanced amounts of compensation shall be payable at the same rate (9 per cent per annum) as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim application till the awarded amount was deposited by the respondents, under the impugned award.