Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 599 (PNJ)

Bimla Rani v. National Insurance Co. Limited

2016-02-12

SURINDER GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : SURINDER GUPTA, J. 1. This is appeal filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (later referred to as the Tribunal) for death of Balraj Arora, aged 21 years, son of claimant no. 1 and grandson of claimant no. 2 on 23.12.1998, in a motor vehicle accident with truck bearing No. PB-08-M-9638 (later referred to as the offending vehicle). 2. As the issue involved in this appeal relates to seeking of enhancement of compensation, facts of claim petition are not required to be discussed in detail. 3. On appraisal of evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver i.e. respondent no. 2 Jasvir Singh. 4. On quantum of compensation, claimants have alleged that father of deceased had already died. The deceased was running a medicine shop at village Deep Singh Wala, tehsil and District Faridkot, which he used to run upto 1.00 p.m. everyday. Thereafter, the deceased worked as accountant on the shop of M/s. Daljit Trading Company, Commission Agent, Sadiq. He was earning Rs. 5000/- per month from medicine shop and Rs. 3000/- per month as salary from M/s. Daljit Trading Company. 5. In order to prove that the deceased was carrying on business of selling medicines under the name and style of M/s. Punjab Medicines Shop, claimants examined AW3 Sukhjinder Singh, who had stated that the deceased had entered into partnership with him to run a medicine shop. On 10.6.1998, they hired the licence of Promila Rani daughter of Shivji Ram, resident of village Kot Bhai, tehsil Gidderbaha for their business and were paying Rs. 850/- to Rs. 950/- per month to her. He produced on record partnership deed (Ex. A2). 6. The Tribunal discarded the above plea of claimants as they did not produce original partnership deed. Promila Rani, whose licence was hired by the deceased and AW3 Sukhjinder Singh, was not examined and no account books showing the investment and income of the partnership firm was produced on record. The Tribunal opined that partnership deed (Ex. A2) could be concocted at any time and Balraj Arora (deceased) and Sukhjinder Singh were not qualified to run the medicine shop. The Tribunal opined that partnership deed (Ex. A2) could be concocted at any time and Balraj Arora (deceased) and Sukhjinder Singh were not qualified to run the medicine shop. The other plea of claimants that the deceased was working as accountant with M/s Daljit Trading Company, Commission Agent, was not accepted for want of any evidence. 7. The deceased was a young boy of the age of 21 years and was quite hale and hearty. The Tribunal took his income as that of a daily wage labourer i.e. Rs. 60/- per day and assessed his monthly income as Rs. 1800- and 1/3rd of his income was deducted towards his personal expenses and on applying the multiplier of 18, compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- was calculated and allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that though claimants, who have lost their only breadwinner, have not been able to produce account books of medicine shop, which the deceased was running, and evidence regarding his working with M/s. Daljit Trading Company, Commission Agent, Sadiq, the Tribunal has committed error while taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1800/- per month, which is on lower side. Claimants have produced on record copy of partnership deed to prove that six months prior to incident the deceased had started his chemist shop. This shop was opened in a village, as such, account books of the business were not being maintained. The Tribunal has committed grave error while considering the deceased as a casual labourer. In the year 1998, even a labourer was earning Rs. 100/- per day and the deceased was well educated and the fact that he was maintaining a motorcycle would show that he was having sufficient income from his business. He was not only taking care of himself but was also looking after his widowed mother and grandmother after death of his father. In case of Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lal and Others, 2014 (1) SCC 244 , the accident had taken place in the year 1992 and parameters allowing compensation in case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 197 were considered. In view of the rupee value coming down drastically from the year 1994, the notional income of the deceased, who was 10 years of age, was assessed as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. In view of the rupee value coming down drastically from the year 1994, the notional income of the deceased, who was 10 years of age, was assessed as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Relying on observations in cases of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 (9) SCC 54 and Munna Lal Jain and Others vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 447, learned counsel for appellants has argued that the claimants are entitled to addition of 50% in income of the deceased towards future prospects. Claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs. 1 lac for the loss of estate, love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 9. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has argued that in the absence of any evidence on record to prove that the deceased was carrying on any business or was working as accountant, the Tribunal has rightly taken his income as a daily wager at Rs. 1800/- per month, which calls for no interference. Regarding entitlement of claimants for addition of 50% of income of the deceased towards future prospects and compensation towards funeral expenses, he has argued that these were allowed vide observations in the case of Rajesh (supra) and at the time of present award, there was no such citation which could be followed by the Tribunal. 10. The deceased was 21 years of age. He was going on his Yamaha motorcycle at the time of accident. The Tribunal has also discussed that the deceased was maintaining a motorcycle and spending on fuel. Claimants have placed on record copy of partnership deed (Ex. A2). This partnership was created only about six months back. In the absence of any evidence like account books, details of purchase of medicines etc., the plea of claimants has rightly been rejected that income of partnership business was Rs. 9000/- per month. But at the same time this fact calls for attention that income of the deceased cannot be compared with a daily wage casual labourer. He was better than a daily wager. The Tribunal has committed error while brushing aside the statement of AW3 Sukhjinder Singh that he has carrying medicine business in partnership with deceased under the name and style of M/s. Punjab Medicines Home, by observing that such a partnership could be concocted at any stage. 11. He was better than a daily wager. The Tribunal has committed error while brushing aside the statement of AW3 Sukhjinder Singh that he has carrying medicine business in partnership with deceased under the name and style of M/s. Punjab Medicines Home, by observing that such a partnership could be concocted at any stage. 11. In case of Krishan Gopal (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court has taken income of a boy aged 10 years as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. In that case accident had taken place in the year 1992. The deceased was an earning family member. Keeping in view rising prices and inflationary trend during 1992 to 1998, it will be appropriate to take monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month. As per observations in the case of Rajesh (supra), claimants are entitled to addition of 50% in income of the deceased towards future prospects besides Rs. 1 lac towards loss of estate, love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 12. In view of my above discussion, the compensation to which claimants are entitled is tabulated as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Income of the deceased Balaraj Arora Rs. 3000 per month (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs. 3000 + Rs. 1500 = Rs. 4500 per month (iii) 50% of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 4500 Rs. 2250 = Rs. 2250 per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied (Rs. 2250 x 12 x 18) = Rs. 486000 (v) Loss of love and affection Rs. 100000 (vi) Funeral expenses Rs. 25000 Total Rs. 611000 13. In view of above, the instant appeal has merit and the same is accepted. Award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation allowed to claimants for death of Balraj Arora is enhanced from Rs. 2,60,000/- to Rs. 6,11,000/-. The amount of compensation will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till actual realization.