Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 349 (PNJ)

Maina v. Sher Singh

2014-02-12

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 03.05.1996, on account of the death of Jhanda Ram, son of the appellant, in a motor vehicular accident. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of accident. He was working as a tailor and was having an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. He remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Fatehabad from 29.01.1995 to 15.02.1995 and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was spent on his treatment. He left behind his mother. But the Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to the claimant under 'no fault liability' i.e. Rs.50,000/- only, as the appellant has failed to prove that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligent driving of respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligence of Respondents No. 1 and 2, whereas, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were challenged and have been facing trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, which is a sufficient proof of negligence. 3. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the statement of PW-2, Tulsi, the eye witness of the case, who was aboard the bust at the time of the accident. The Learned Tribunal wrongly rejected the most natural and reliable evidence produced by the claimant-appellant on issue No. 1. The FIR was lodged by the deceased himself who stated that he was pushed out of the bus by the conductor. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. According to statement of PW-2, Tulsi deposed that she alongwith Pirthi and Jhanda Ram had gone to Agroha for doing tailoring work and all of them were returning in bus No. HR-12/9607 which stopped at Agroha. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. According to statement of PW-2, Tulsi deposed that she alongwith Pirthi and Jhanda Ram had gone to Agroha for doing tailoring work and all of them were returning in bus No. HR-12/9607 which stopped at Agroha. She also stated that she and Pirthi were still inside the bus when Jhanda Ram attempted to get down from the bus he fell and was run over by the rear tyre of the bus. 7. It is not disputed that the death of Jhanda Ram, son of the appellant, occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. He was only the sole bread earner of the family and left behind his mother. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 276, held that the deceased was a young boy of 10 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by taking the notional income of the child at Rs.30,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 15, according to the age of the parents of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. Keeping in view the same, in the present case, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if the compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.5 lacs (Rs.4,50,000/- + 50,000/- under conventional heads). Ordered accordingly. 8. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation amount i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- shall be paid to the claimant-appellant, in the manner in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. Appeal allowed.