Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 237 (PNJ)

Jasbir Kaur v. Ramesh Kumar

2014-01-30

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal i.e. FAO No. 2779 of 1996 has been preferred by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the impugned award dated 05.08.1996, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, the Tribunal) on account of death of Harjinder Singh in an accident involving Truck No. PB-07-A/9899. Whereas, the second appeal i.e. FAO No. 113 of 1997 has been filed by the Insurance Company which is arising out of the same award and accident. Learned counsel for the appellant-Jasbir Kaur submits that the impugned order is liable to be modified on the sole ground that the deceased-Harjinder Singh left behind a huge family liability vis-a-vis young wife and their minor children of the tender age of 3-1/2, 2 years and 7 months respectively in addition to the liability of old and ailing parents. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is evident from the record that respondent No. 1 Ramesh was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle which caused the death of Harjinder Singh. The findings on issue No. 1 is affirmed. 5. The claimants have claimed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month. Besides, Rs. 50/- whenever he used to go outside. In support of his case, AW-3 Narinder Singh stated that Truck No. PB-08A/7955 is the ownership of his father Amar Singh and this witness has been looking after the business of his father. He stated that Harjinder Singh-deceased was employed as a driver on this truck and he was withdrawing Rs. 3000/- per month besides Rs. 50/- whenever he used to be away. He also stated that deceased was very efficient driver and was having valid driving licence but no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants showing the deceased having been employed by AW-3 Narinder Singh as a driver. As such, the deceased can be termed to be an ordinary labourer or part time driver. His income was assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 1200/- per month and applied deduction 1/3 as the deceased was spending on him. As such monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1200-400 = 800 and his yearly dependency comes to Rs. 800 X 12 = 9600. His income was assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 1200/- per month and applied deduction 1/3 as the deceased was spending on him. As such monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1200-400 = 800 and his yearly dependency comes to Rs. 800 X 12 = 9600. The deceased was of 30 years of age and the multiplier applied was 18. Thus, the claimants were entitled to Rs. 9600 X 18 = Rs. 1,72,800/- by the learned Tribunal. 6. Respondent No. 1 driver stated that he was holding a valid driving licence and he has produced its photostat copy Ex. R1. This licence, according to him is duplicate as the original was lost. He had been driving the truck for the last so many years. The record of the DTO Amritsar produced before the learned Tribunal was found to be tempered with. The learned Tribunal after scrutinizing the register the DTO Office Amritsar, came to the following conclusion:- So it can safely be said that this duplicate licence produced by Ramesh Singh is a fabricated one, made by him in active connivance with the official of the DTO Office, Amritsar for that, it is recommended that the SSP Amritsar should investigate this matter and the actual culprit, who made the only of serial No. 8723 be brought to book alongwith the official of the DTO who manipulated this entry by registering formal FIR against the guilty official/on-official, thus a copy of this order be sent to the SSP Amritsar alongwith the original register. So the learned Tribunal held the copy of driving licence produced by respondent No. 1 as a bogus and fake while deciding issue of liability to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal held that even if respondent No. 1 driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident, even then the Insurance Company is not absolved from the payment of the liability as per terms and conditions of policy Ex. R-4. 7. It is proved that the death of Harjinder Singh occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. He was 30 years of age at the time of his death. He left behind five dependents; widow, mother, father and three children. R-4. 7. It is proved that the death of Harjinder Singh occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. He was 30 years of age at the time of his death. He left behind five dependents; widow, mother, father and three children. As per judgment of Supreme Court in case Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170: 2013 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 659: (2013) 9 SCC 54 if the deceased was below 30 years as such he shall be granted 50% increase in his income for his future prospect. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 17 instead of 18 and deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses ought to have been taken. Ordered accordingly. 8. Untimely death of Harjinder Singh was a great shock to his family. He was the sole bread earner of the family. No amount has been awarded towards conventional heads. Therefore, this Court feels that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 945: 2013 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 446: (2013-3) PLR 776, the compensation under the following heads deserves to be allowed, which would meet the ends of justice:- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs. 8,03,148/- (3500 (monthly income) + 50% increase in his future prospect of total income-1/4th (deduction) x 12 x 17 + 2,00,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced compensation (Rs. 10,03,148/- Rs. 1,72,800/- already awarded) Rs.8,30,148/- shall be paid to the claimants-appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation. 10. As there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company are given recovery rights to recover the amount from the owner and driver after its payment to the claimants. In view of the above, the present appeals FAO No. 2779 of 1996 and FAO No. 113 of 1997 are partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. Appeal allowed.