Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 915 (PNJ)

Sharda Devi v. Lal Chand

2013-07-24

Vijender Singh Malik

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on the death of Ram Niwas in a road side accident that took place on 13.04.2008. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Narnaul (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has held the accident to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles involved in the accident and apportioned the liability among the two sets of respondents in the ratio of 50:50. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,30,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. On 13.04.2008 Ram Niwas, the deceased was travelling with others in Army jeep, which was driven by its driver at its correct side of the road and at a moderate speed. At about 10.00 PM, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-07-G-4464, which was going ahead of the jeep, suddenly stopped and despite the efforts of the driver of the jeep, the jeep had hit the back side of the truck. Ram Niwas suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to the same. Ram Niwas was aged 47 years at the time of the accident and his monthly income was Rs.30,000/-. He was employed as Subedar in the Indian Army. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte and proforma respondent No.8, the married daughter of the deceased, who was denied to be a dependent of the deceased was also proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company has claimed the accident to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by respondent no.4. Respondents No. 4 to 6 have also denied the averments made in the claim petition. 4. Learned Tribunal has found under issue no.1 that the accident was result of a composite negligence in driving of both the vehicles by respondents No. 1 and 4. Under the other issues, learned Tribunal has found the claimants to be entitled to Rs.17,30,000/- as compensation which was ordered to be shared in the ratio of 50:50 by respondents No.1 to 3 and respondents No. 4 to 6. In the result, the claim petition has been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award on three grounds. In the result, the claim petition has been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award on three grounds. According to him, instead of 10, the multiplier available in this case is of 13 because the deceased was 47 years of age at the time of the accident. He has further submitted that no amount has been added in the name of future prospects and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and ors., [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013 ACJ 1403, 30% of income should have been added thereto in the name of future prospects . He has lastly submitted that the claimants have been more than 4 in number and still, in violation of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the dependency of the claimants is taken at 2/3rd of the income by deducting 1/3rd therefrom in the name of personal expenses of the deceased on himself. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has disputed the abovegiven reasons heads to be available for enhancement of compensation. According to him, adequate compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Learned standing counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 has , however, submitted that the accident has occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. According to him, this plea is taken by the appellants in his grounds of appeal also. 8. It is a simple case where the jeep is following the truck. The truck is claimed to have stopped all of a sudden and the jeep driver could not stop his vehicle which rammed into the back side of the truck. There is no averment of anyone nor an iota of evidence to prove that the truck did not have back lights or that they did not glow when the brakes were applied. If there were brake lights on the truck and they glowed when brakes were applied, the accident could only be on account of the fact that the jeep was not maintaining safe distance from the truck. If there were brake lights on the truck and they glowed when brakes were applied, the accident could only be on account of the fact that the jeep was not maintaining safe distance from the truck. A truck would not ask the driver of the vehicle following it before applying brakes. Therefore, it appears to be a case of clear negligence on the part of the jeep driver. However, there is no challenge to the finding on issue no.1 from respondents no.1 to 3 and, hence, I find no reason to alter the finding recorded by learned Tribunal on issue no.1. 9. The deceased had been a Subedar in the Army. His income was found to be 21,376/- per month. A question is as to whether any amount should be added thereto for calculation of compensation. 10. It has been laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case supra that if the victim had been in a permanent job and was of the age between 40 to 50, 30% should be added to the income in the name of future prospects. So far this aspect is concerned, it remains untouched in the later decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 30% of the income to the salary to find out the actual salary of the deceased. 11. It has not come on the record as to whether the deceased was paying any income tax and if so what was his liability in this regard. If 30% is added to Rs.21,376/-, the income of the deceased, it comes to Rs.27,786/-. A person getting this salary would be liable to pay income tax. Therefore, I take the salary of the deceased, which is actual salary minus income tax at Rs.25,000/- per month. It is a case where the claimants are five in number, out of whom, one is widow and three are minor children of the deceased. When the dependent members are 4 to 6, the dependency has to be calculated at 3/4th of the same by deducting ¼ from the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased on himself. Thus, calculated, the annual dependency of the claimants come to Rs.2,25,000/-. 12. Coming to the multiplier, it has to be seen that the deceased has been 47 years of age at the time of his death. Thus, calculated, the annual dependency of the claimants come to Rs.2,25,000/-. 12. Coming to the multiplier, it has to be seen that the deceased has been 47 years of age at the time of his death. As laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case supra, the multiplier in this case should be 13 instead of 10, as taken by learned Tribunal. Multiplying the annual dependency with 13, I find a sum of Rs.29,25,000/- to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Subedar Ram Niwas. Adding to it, a sum of Rs.20,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal in the name of loss of consortium and other conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs.29,45,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants from Rs.17,30,000/- to Rs.29,45,000/-, which shall be payable to the claimants with interest @7% per annum and in the proportion given by the Tribunal in its award. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————