Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1764 (PNJ)

Hoshiyar Singh v. Kavita Devi

2014-12-17

ANITA CHAUDHRY

body2014
JUDGMENT : Anita Chaudhry, J. 1. These are four appeals arising out of an accident which occurred on 19.7.2009 leading to the death of Vijender and Sandeep. Two claims petitions were filed, which were decided by the Tribunal at Jind and one at Karnal. As the appeal arise out of the same I propose to take up all the four appeals together. Two appeals are by the claimants seeking enhancement, the other two are by Hoshiyar Singh driver of the offending vehicle who seeks exoneration. A look at the facts first, Sandeep alongwith Vijender was proceeding from village That to Kheri Saraf Ali on a motorcycle on 19.07.2009 at 7.30 p.m. They were near village Khurda. Hoshiyar Singh came in the offending tractor and struck against the motor cycle causing the death of Sandeep and his brother-in-law, Vijender. The driver left the spot leaving the tractor trolley behind. The parents of Vijender filed MACT case No. 93 of 31.8.2009 which was decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind vide award dated 06.03.2012. The widow and parents of Sandeep filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal bearing No. 173 of 2011 which came to be decided on 18.01.2012. 2. In the claim petition filed by parents and wife of the deceased Vijender, the plea was that Vijender was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from labour work at a Brick Kiln. He was 28 years old. A submission had been made by one of the respondent that his widow Sudesh had remarried her brother-in law and son had born from that wedlock and therefore she had failed to step into the witness box. The Tribunal assessed the income as that of the labourer at Rs. 4,000/- per month and made a deduction of 1/4th. The contribution was taken as Rs. 2,670/- per month. The annual contribution was taken at Rs. 32,040/- and applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation was calculated at Rs. 4,80,210/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added as funeral expenses and loss of estate making the total to be Rs. 4,90,210/-. Out of the awarded amount, 50% was to be paid to Sudesh and the remaining amount was ordered to be paid to the parents. The responsibility of payment of compensation was placed upon the driver and owner as the vehicle was not insured. 10,000/- was added as funeral expenses and loss of estate making the total to be Rs. 4,90,210/-. Out of the awarded amount, 50% was to be paid to Sudesh and the remaining amount was ordered to be paid to the parents. The responsibility of payment of compensation was placed upon the driver and owner as the vehicle was not insured. The owner had died, his legal heirs were impleaded as party. 3. In the claim petition filed by wife and parents of Sandeep the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was a labourer and was also earning from sale of milk. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence and treated the income at Rs. 4,800/- per month and made a deduction of 1/3rd. The dependency was calculated at Rs. 3,200/- per month. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was 22 years old and multiplier of 15 was applied and the compensation was calculated at Rs. 5,76,000/-. Additionally a sum of Rs. 14,000 was added towards transportation and other heads. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added as loss of consortium taking the total to be Rs. 6,00,000/-. 4. The respondents had pleaded that Kavita had remarried her devar and a son was born out of that wedlock. That plea was rejected and the compensation was ordered to be paid to all the claimants in equal shares. The liability of payment of compensation was placed upon the driver and legal heirs of the owner. FAO Nos. 3267 and 4768 of 2012 5. These two appeals have been filed by Hoshiyar Singh the driver of the Tractor. Taking up these two appeals first, the submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the driver had been acquitted by the criminal Court and Palu Ram could not identify the driver and the finding on issue No. 1 be reversed and the claim petitions dismissed. 6. The submission of the claimants/respondents was that judgment of conviction or acquittal can not be considered and the Tribunal has to independently assess the evidence led before the Tribunal and the Court had considered these pleas. It was urged that the judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the civil Court and the FIR lodged by Palu Ram gives the details and the manner of the accident. 7. It was urged that the judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the civil Court and the FIR lodged by Palu Ram gives the details and the manner of the accident. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and the submissions made on both the sides has observed that the statements made by the eye witness was unblemished. The Tribunal noted that the FIR had been registered immediately after the accident. It considered the submissions and dealt with the arguments at length. The argument that where a criminal case ends in acquittal, the civil suit must follow the same fate is not the law. Palu Ram the author of the FIR had made a statement giving a vivid account of the accident. It was accepted by the Tribunal and there is no reason to differ with the view taken. The driver was unable to lead any evidence to show that he was not at the spot and was somewhere else. The fact that the trial had ended in acquittal was for the reason that the witnesses were unable to identify the driver. The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than in a civil suit. Mere acquittal in the criminal case would not result in a favourable finding in favour of the driver. There is no reason to take a different view. 8. Both the appeals are dismissed. FAO No. 2869 of 2012 9. The submission made on behalf of the legal heirs of Vijender were that the Tribunal had failed to award any amount towards loss of estate and there should have been addition in the income towards future prospect and as per Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 they were entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection as well as an increase in the funeral expenses. 10. The claimants had pleaded that Vijender was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and was working at a Brick Kiln. The Tribunal had rightly assessed the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month even otherwise the minimum wages in Haryana in 2009 were close to Rs. 4,000/-. The Tribunal had made a deduction towards personal expenses and had applied the multiplier of 15 and had assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,80,210/- and had added Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. No change is required so far as funeral expenses is concerned. 4,000/- per month even otherwise the minimum wages in Haryana in 2009 were close to Rs. 4,000/-. The Tribunal had made a deduction towards personal expenses and had applied the multiplier of 15 and had assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,80,210/- and had added Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. No change is required so far as funeral expenses is concerned. The Tribunal had assessed the income to be Rs. 4,000/- and I propose to make no change in that. Since the deceased was under 40 years of age, 50% addition should be made in the income and total would be Rs. 6,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the amount available for the family would be Rs. 4,000/-. The annual contribution would come to Rs. 48,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation would come to Rs. 7,20,000/-. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- should be added for loss of love and affection which makes the total to be Rs. 7,45,000/-. The Tribunal had already allowed Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses, therefore, I propose to make no change in that. The total compensation would come to Rs. 7,45,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,90,210/- which would be deducted from the above amount and it would be distributed in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company within two months failing which the claimants would be entitled to the same interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the appeal till its realization. 11. The appeal is partly allowed. FAO No. 4105 of 2012 12. In the appeal filed by legal heirs of Sandeep the submission was that Sandeep was only 22 years old and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was 15 which should have been 18 and the claimants were also entitled to the increased amount towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. It was urged that no increase towards future prospect had been allowed and there should be 50% increase in the income. 13. The submission on the other hand was that the income assessed by the Tribunal was already on the higher side as the minimum wages were not Rs. 4,800/- in the year 2009 and no increase should be given. 14. 13. The submission on the other hand was that the income assessed by the Tribunal was already on the higher side as the minimum wages were not Rs. 4,800/- in the year 2009 and no increase should be given. 14. A perusal of the award shows that the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was a labourer and was also selling milk but they were unable to lead any evidence and income of a labour was taken at Rs. 4,800/- per month. The minimum wages in the year 2009 were Rs. 4,000/-. Therefore, the income is taken at Rs. 4,000/- and addition of 50% is made towards future increase in income as per Rajesh's case, the monthly income would come to Rs. 6,000/-. After making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the amount available for the family would be Rs. 4,000/- per month. The annual contribution would be Rs. 48,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation would be work out to Rs. 8,64,000/-. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- should be added as loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses. 15. Thus, making the total to be Rs. 8,99,000/-. Out of this amount, the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the claimants in the same ratio as allowed by the Tribunal within two months failing which they would be entitled to interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the appeal till its realization. Resultantly, FAO Nos. 3267 and 4768 of 2012 are dismissed and FAO Nos. 2869 and 4105 of 2012 are partly allowed.