Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1102 (PNJ)

Ramesh Devi v. Lal Chand

2014-07-24

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, challenging the impugned Award dated 31.10.1995, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (in short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition was dismissed. The brief facts of the case noticed in para 4 of the Award are reproduced as under:- On 12.7.1993, Madan Singh, now deceased, along with Ram Chander, now deceased, and Ved Parkash, injured was returning to their home in Tractor No. HR-34/1597. The said tractor was being driven by Lal Chand, respondent No. 1. AT about 6.30 PM, when the said tractor approached near village Mandola, the driver was driving the said tractor at a very high speed and in a zigzag manner. Bulla Ram and Ram Chander, other occupants of the tractor had asked the driver namely Lal Chand to driver the tractor slowly, but he did not pay any heed to their request and continued driving the said tractor at an uncontrolable speed and when the tractor reached near the well, known as Chowkiwala Kuan, the trolley of the tractor turned turtle and as such, the accident had taken place resulting in injuries to Madan Singh, Ram Chander and Ved Parkash. The injured were rushed to the CHC, Mohindergarh where Ram Chander had breathed his last and Madan Singh was referred to Medical Collage and Hospital, Rohtak, where he had died on 18.7.1993. 2. The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by holding that the deceased and the injured were travelling on the tractor in question, which was not a vehicle meant for carrying passengers, therefore, neither driver nor the Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation. 3. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the ground that the deceased and injured were travelling on the tractor in question, which is not a vehicle meant for carrying passengers. The deceased and the injured were the poor labourers. The tractor and the trolley was engaged by the Forest Department for transporting the plantation, manure and for carrying the labourers. The accident is proved on record. He prays for grant of adequate compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased being gratuitous passengers, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The accident is proved on record. He prays for grant of adequate compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased being gratuitous passengers, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He cites New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh, 2000 (1) RCR (Civil) 274 (SC). 5. Learned counsel for the owner and driver contended that the vehicle in question was insured and had been hired by the Forest Department. At the time of accident, the Forest Department officials were carrying labourers from their villages to working place. He further contended that the tractor trolley was also being used to transfer sapling and trees of the forest department. Lastly, it was contended that all of a sudden left wheel of the trolley got brusted on account of which, the trolley turned turtle causing the accident. 6. The learned State counsel states that the deceased and the injured were not employed with the Forest Department. He further contended that the tractor in question was never engaged by the Forest Department for any official work, therefore, the State Government is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 8. While deciding issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HR-34/1597 by Lal Chand, driver, which resulted in to the death of two persons namely Madan Singh and Ram Chander and also injury to Ved Parkash. 9. The next question arises as to from whom the compensation will be recovered. In this case, the owner and driver have failed to bring any iota of evidence with regard that in fact the tractor trolley were hired by the Forest Department for fetching the labourer from one place to another and for other departmental work, such as carrying sapling and instruments. On the other hand, RW 3, JR Gupta has categorically stated as under:- "Forest Department has got no connection with tractor No. HR34/1597. We had not hired this tractor. We have given no instruction to the owner of the tractor. Madan Lal son of Ram Parshad was employed by us on daily wages. He was also on daily wages on the date of accident. We had not hired this tractor. We have given no instruction to the owner of the tractor. Madan Lal son of Ram Parshad was employed by us on daily wages. He was also on daily wages on the date of accident. Ram Chander son of Arjun was also employed by our department daily wages. He was also on roll on the date of accident. Ved Parkash son of Kundan Lal was not employed by our department on daily wages." 10. This witness is responsible officer of the Department. He has made statement as per record. The accident is proved, but it is not proved that the tractor trolley was engaged by the Forest Department. The owner and the driver, in order to shift the liability upon the Insurance Company was under obligation to prove that the tractor trolley was hired by the Forest Department, or that it was under the immediate and physical control of the Department. No such document or agreement has been brought on record by them in this regard. This witness has frankly admitted that Madan Lal and Ram Chander were employed with the Forest Department on daily wages, on the date of accident, though, Ved Parkash, injured was not employed with the Forest Department. The tractor trolley are meant for agricultural purpose only. The deceased as well as the injured were travelling on the tractor trolley as gratuitous passengers on the fateful day, which is against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the award. 11. However, it is admitted fact that at the time of accident, Madan Singh, Ram Chander and Ved Parkash were travelling in tractor trolley No. HR34/1597 and due to rash and negligent driving of driver Lal Chand, Madan Singh and Ram Chander died, whereas Ved Parkash suffered injuries. Therefore, the driver and owner are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 12. However, as the vehicle was insured at the time of accident, thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 114 : 2004 ACJ 1, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount and then recover the same from the driver and/or owner of the tractor trolley jointly and severally. 13. 13. Now the question arises how much compensation, the claimants-appellants are entitled. It was pleaded in the claim petition that deceased Madan Singh was aged about 30 years. However, there is no evidence on record regarding income of the deceased. Therefore, considering him as a casual labourer, as per the minimum wages prevalent at that, his income is assessed at ` 1340/- per month. Further in view of the law laid down in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170 : 2013 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 659 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the claimants are entitled to get 50% increase towards future prospects. He left behind a widow, one daughter and two minor sons. He was the sole bread winner of the family. In view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 17 and deduction of 1/4th are to be made. In view of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, (2013-3) PLR 776, the compensation under the conventional heads deserves to be allowed:- 14. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ` 5,17,530/- (1340 (monthly income) + 50% (future prospects) - 1/4th (deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased) x 12 x 17 (multiplier + 1,00,000 (loss of consortium payable to the widow only) + 10,000 (funeral and last rites including already granted) + 1,00,000 (Loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children in equal shares), which shall be paid to the claimant-appellants, in the following manner:- 15. The share of the minor children shall be deposited in some nationalized bank in the shape of FDRs. fetching maximum rate of interest, till the attaining each one of them the age of majority. 16. The compensation amount shall be paid to the claimants appellants within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. The appellants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realisation. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed; MACT case No. 52 of 1993 is allowed to the extent indicated above, with no costs.