Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 483 (PNJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sheela Devi

2016-02-05

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Darshan Singh, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of both the appeals mentioned above which have arisen out of the same award dated 1.12.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shall be referred as per the claim petition. 3. FAO No.2308 of 2015 has been preferred by respondent No.4 Oriental Insurance Company Limited. FAO No.2656 of 2015 has been preferred by claimants Sheela Devi and others. 4. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of death of Hanish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.1.2014. 5. It was further pleaded that deceased Hanish Kumar was matriculate. He was working as a Helper with M/s Vista Processed Food Private Limited, Jalbehri Gehlan near Sadhugarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through contractor Prism Facilities Management Services, Mumbai and was earning Rs. 10,800/- as salary and Rs. 10,000/- by performing the jagrans. In this way, he was earning total Rs. 20,800/- per month. It was also pleaded that the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of his death. 6. The claim petition filed by the claimants was contested by respondents No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company in FAO No.2656 of 2015 by filing the separate written statements wherein they denied the factum regarding accident. They also denied the age, income and profession of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 30.7.2014: "1. Whether Hanish Kumar died in a road side accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving Tipper No. PB-13-R-7570, in a rash and negligent manner? OPP 2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation as prayed for, if so to what extent and from whom? OPC 4. Whether the respondent No.1 being driver of the above said vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence, route permit at the time of accident? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No.1 had committed breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR 6. Relief." 8. OPC 4. Whether the respondent No.1 being driver of the above said vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence, route permit at the time of accident? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No.1 had committed breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR 6. Relief." 8. On appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,01,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation. 9. FAO No. 2308 of 2001 has been preferred by respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company Limited assailing the award. The claimants have preferred FAO No.2656 of 2015 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 10. I have heard Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the claimants, Mr. Gurbir S. Toor, Advocate for driver and owner and have meticulously gone through the paper book. 11. Before taking up the main appeals, it is pertinent to mention that claimants have also moved an application i.e. CM No.14646-CII of 2015 under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead the additional evidence for production of the income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2012-2013 filed on 6.1.2014. 12. Heard on this application. 13. Normally the income tax returns are filed after 31st March i.e. the end of the financial year. It is not explained as to how the income tax returns sought to be produced in the additional evidence was filed on 6.1.2014 which is not the proper time to file the income tax return. The copy of the income tax return placed on record shows that the stamp affixed therein does not bear the signatures of any officer/official of the Income Tax Department showing the filing of the said return. There is also no satisfactory explanation as to why this return was not produced during the trial. So, this application has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company contended that the income of the deceased has been wrongly calculated. He contended that it is not believable that the deceased would be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by performing the jagrans. So, this application has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company contended that the income of the deceased has been wrongly calculated. He contended that it is not believable that the deceased would be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by performing the jagrans. It is not possible that he would have been getting this work regularly during the month. So, the learned Tribunal was not justified in adding Rs. 3,000/- per month to the income of the deceased under this head. He further contended that even the future prospects have been applied on this additional income of the deceased which is also wrong. Thus, he pleaded that the amount of compensation has been computed on higher side and in a wrong manner. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, learned counsel for the claimants contended that in addition to his job, the deceased used to perform the jagrans. Even on the date of accident, he was returning after performing the jagran. So, the learned Tribunal has rightly added Rs. 3,000/- per month to the income of the deceased and there is no error in computation of the compensation. 16. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 17. The only dispute raised before this Court by learned counsel for Insurance Company is about the addition of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the income of the deceased on account of his income from the jagrans. This fact is not disputed that even as per the FIR Ex.P8, when the accident occurred, the deceased along with his brother was going from Rajpura to Patiala for performing the jagran. Claimant Sheela Devi, the mother of the deceased, has also supported the version mentioned in the petition that deceased used to perform the jagrans. PW-3 Pawan Kumar @ Pali has further corroborated the version of the claimants and deposed that for the last 4-5 years deceased Hanish Kumar was working with him as he was a good singer and used to prepare Jhankis. They have been performing jagrans throughout Punjab and Haryana. In a month they used to perform 10-12 jagrans and during Navratras, they used to perform jagrans for 20-25 days and at each jagran, deceased Hanish Kumar was earning Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/- per day. They have been performing jagrans throughout Punjab and Haryana. In a month they used to perform 10-12 jagrans and during Navratras, they used to perform jagrans for 20-25 days and at each jagran, deceased Hanish Kumar was earning Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/- per day. So, there is nothing to dispute the version of the claimants that deceased Hanish Kumar was having the additional income by performing at Jagrans. The learned Tribunal has added a reasonable amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the salary income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 8,000/- per month. So, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 11,000/- per month. 18. I do not find any substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company that future prospects cannot be applied towards the additional income of the deceased from jagrans. In the principle evolved as a result of judicial precedents, there is no distinction between the regular and additional income. The future prospects are to be awarded towards the total income of the deceased/victim. Moreover, it cannot be stated that there would have been no rise in the income of the deceased from jagrans with the passage of time as with the passage of time, he might have earned experience, identity and name in this field and could have got more remuneration and work. So, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in awarding the future prospects towards the total income of the deceased including his income from jagrans. 19. Learned counsel for the claimants have also not been able to point out any deficiency or error in the computation of amount of compensation by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under all the heads. Thus, the amount of compensation computed by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate and there is no scope for any enhancement. 20. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in both the appeals. Hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.