Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1436 (PNJ)

POOJA DABRA v. NAZIR HASSAN

2016-05-17

SNEH PRASHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sneh Prashar, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 7.1.2000 on account of death of Vijay Kumar Dabra, husband of appellant No.1, father of appellants no.2 to 4 and son of appellant No.5, in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 26.2.1998. 2. The submissions made by Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate representing the appellants and Mrs.Vandana Malohtra, Advocate for respondent No.3 have been heard and record perused. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding composite negligence on part of driver (deceased Vijay Kumar) of the scooter and driver of truck bearing registration No.HR-02A-8790 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending truck') in the ratio of 25:75 in causing the accident. The offending truck was allegedly parked without putting on its parking lights or any other indication on the road when the scooter of the deceased struck into the same. Since there was nothing to show existence of the stationary offending truck on the road the scooterist (deceased) was unable to see the truck and his vehicle rammed into the same. The facts clearly prove that negligent parking of the truck on the road was solely responsible for causing the accident. 4. Learned counsel further contended that the multiplier of 14 should have been applied, since the deceased was 45-1/2 years aged. Nothing was added in the income computing future prospects of the deceased. The claimants are the widow, minor children and mother, but nothing was awarded towards loss of love, care and guidance to the children and also for loss of love and affection to the mother, whereas a meager amount of Rs. 5900/- was allowed on account of loss of consortium. Also no amount was allowed towards funeral expenses. 5. The claimants are the widow, minor children and mother, but nothing was awarded towards loss of love, care and guidance to the children and also for loss of love and affection to the mother, whereas a meager amount of Rs. 5900/- was allowed on account of loss of consortium. Also no amount was allowed towards funeral expenses. 5. Dealing with the issue of negligence in driving the scooter by its driver (since deceased) and the offending truck by respondent No.1 which resulted in causing of the accident in question, the findings of learned Tribunal are as under:- "In this connection, in the above situation when the deceased i.e. scooterist admittedly came driving his scooter from behind the truck and he hit his scooter on the back side of the truck, he also cannot be exonerated from his fault in the matter of causing the accident. Had he not been negligent to any extent he could have seen the parked truck with the light of his scooter and as held in some what similar circumstances in "Gurdial Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala, 1999(3) RCR (Civil) 150 the deceased scooterist was at fault in the matter of causing the accident to the extent of 25%. Obviously, therefore, respondent No.1 driver of the truck in question is negligent in the matter of causing the accident to the extent of 75% and there is no merit in these circumstances in the plea of the learned counsel for the claimants and the fault in the matter of causing the accident in view of the authorities cited by him mentioned in para 11 above is found wholly of the truck driver i.e. respondent No.1." 6. It is in the statement of PW3 Kewal Krishan Saini the eye witness that the deceased was attempting to overtake the offending truck and in that process his scooter struck against right rear portion of the offending truck. Even if the offending truck was stationary, the version of PW3 Kewal Krishan Saini proves that the deceased was trying to overtake the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner because of which, he struck into the right rear portion of the offending truck. Even if the offending truck was stationary, the version of PW3 Kewal Krishan Saini proves that the deceased was trying to overtake the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner because of which, he struck into the right rear portion of the offending truck. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants failed to demonstrate any misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence by learned Tribunal and hence, the finding regarding composite negligence on part of the deceased and driver of the offending truck which led to the accident calls for no intervention. 7. Deceased Vijay Kumar Dabra was employed as Revenue Accountant in the office of H.V.P.N.L. Hisar and was getting salary of Rs. 10,982/- per month. At the time of accident, the deceased was 45-1/2 years aged. Perusal of the award shows that no addition to the income computing future prospects was made. Following the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. DTC and another 2009 ACJ 1298 , since the deceased was 45-1/2 years aged, addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased computing future prospects has to be made. There are five claimants namely widow, three children and old mother, therefore, deduction of 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses is appropriate. The multiplier of 13 needs to be increased as 14, since the deceased was 45-1/2 years old. Accordingly, Rs. 17,98,852/- (10982 + 30% - 1/4th x 12 x 14) is worked out under the head of loss of dependency. Since, it is a case of contributory negligence of the deceased and driver of the offending truck in the ratio of 25:75, therefore, appellants are entitled to 75% of Rs. 17,98,852/- i.e. Rs. 13,49,139/-. 8. Apart from it, while awarding compensation under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal has not allowed any amount towards loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children and for loss of love and affection to the mother. Untimely death of Nirmal Singh was naturally a grave shock to the claimants. He was the sole bread earner of the family. Following the ratio of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others (2013) 9 SCC 54 Rs. one lac is allowed on account of loss of love, care and guidance to the children to be paid in equals shares; Rs. one lac under the head of loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. Following the ratio of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others (2013) 9 SCC 54 Rs. one lac is allowed on account of loss of love, care and guidance to the children to be paid in equals shares; Rs. one lac under the head of loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection to the mother subject to her furnishing life certificate. Further a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is allowed as expenditure on last rites including the amount already awarded. 9. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,04,139/- (16,24,139- 8,20,000) shall be paid to the claimants-appellants within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the appeal, till its realisation. 10. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the above extent.