Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1006 (PNJ)

Resham Kaur v. Kesar Singh

2018-02-23

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Avneesh Jhingan, J. The two appeals and cross-objections have arisen from the award dated 12.03.2011 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). 2. An accident took place on 08.09.2007. Rakesh Kumar, aged 28 years, was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-08J(Temp)-6219. A rashly and negligently truck bearing registration No.PB02-AL-9702 (for shore, 'the offending vehicle') struck the motorcycle from behind. As a result of the accident, Rakesh Kumar suffered injuries. He was removed to Johal Hospital, Rama Mandi where he succumbed injuries. FIR No.63 dated 08.09.2007 was registered. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was filed by the mother, sister and brother of the deceased. The widow of the deceased was arrayed as respondent No.8. 4. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle, driver and the insurer were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. The claim of the brother and sister of the deceased was dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The compensation awarded included Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. 6. FAO No.7204 of 2011 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. FAO No.4533 of 2012 has been filed by the widow of the deceased being aggrieved that no compensation was awarded to her. 7. The insurer of the offending vehicle has filed cross-objections claiming exoneration from liability to pay on the ground that driving licence produced was not originally validly issued. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book and record. FAO No.7204 of 2011 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that no future prospects have been added and the amount awarded for funeral expenses is on the lower side. He contended that no amount has been awarded under other conventional heads. He further contended that 3/4th deduction for self expenses has wrongly been made. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the claimants failed to prove the occupation and earning of the deceased. In such circumstances, the monthly earning of the deceased assessed as Rs.4,000/- is on the higher side. 11. He further contended that 3/4th deduction for self expenses has wrongly been made. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the claimants failed to prove the occupation and earning of the deceased. In such circumstances, the monthly earning of the deceased assessed as Rs.4,000/- is on the higher side. 11. The claimants had averred in the claim petition that the deceased was running a canteen on contract in S.D. Model School, Jalandhar Cantt., the claim was not supported by any evidence. They were not able to prove the monthly earning of the deceased. In such circumstances, the safest yardstick would be to rely upon the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. The deceased was allegedly a canteen contractor though not proved, in such circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that his earning is assessed as of semi skilled labourer. In the State of Punjab in September 2007 for semi skilled labourer, the minimum wages were Rs.3,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 is to be applied. The deceased was survived by two dependants, giving due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77, 1/3rd deduction for self expenses has to be made. 12. In consonance with the latest decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 AIR (SC) 5157, 40% future prospects are to be added and Rs.70,000/- is to be awarded under conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. 13. The compensation is recalculated as under :- Monthly income Rs.3,000/- Annual income Rs.36,000/- Add 40% future prospects Rs.14,400/- Total income Rs.50,400/- 1/3rd deduction for self expenses Rs.16,800/- Dependency Rs.33,600/- Applying multiplier of 17 Rs.5,71,200/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.6,41,200/- 14. The award dated 12.03.2011 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded of Rs.2,09,000 /- is enhanced to Rs.6,41,200 /-. FAO-4533-2012 (O&M) 15. The Tribunal erred in awarding the entire compensation to the mother of the deceased and ignoring the widow. Both were dependants of the deceased and were entitled to compensation. It has been stated that earlier amount awarded by the Tribunal has been paid along with interest to the mother of the deceased. FAO-4533-2012 (O&M) 15. The Tribunal erred in awarding the entire compensation to the mother of the deceased and ignoring the widow. Both were dependants of the deceased and were entitled to compensation. It has been stated that earlier amount awarded by the Tribunal has been paid along with interest to the mother of the deceased. Since now the compensation is to be apportioned, the amount already received by the mother would be taken into consideration. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation including the enhanced compensation is apportioned between the widow and the mother in the ratio of 50:50. 17. The appellants would be entitled to enhanced amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the realisation of the amount. It is, however, clarified that apart from the compensation amount even the interest received earlier and now would also be divided in ratio of 50:50 between the mother and the widow. 18. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above said terms. Cross-objections No.89-CII of 2012 19. One of the objection raised regarding quantum of compensation has been dealt with in the decided appeal above. 20. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the driving licence produced was fake as it was not originally validly issued but subsequently validly renewed as per report Ex.R2. His contention is that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the said report. 21. Learned counsel for the owners of the offending vehicle i.e. respondents No.2 to 6 argued that firm had employed the driver after verifying the driving licence. The said licence was verified from the issuing authority at the time of his appointment. He relies upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and ors., 2004(3) SCC 297 . 22. The contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no merits. It has come on record in cross-examination of Harpal Singh that the owner of the offending vehicle had verified the driving licence from the issuing authority, the verification report was procured. In such circumstances, the contention raised by learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle is supported by the decision of Supreme Court in case of Swaran Singh's case (supra). The employer cannot be expected to run from pillar to post verifying the driving licence. In such circumstances, the contention raised by learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle is supported by the decision of Supreme Court in case of Swaran Singh's case (supra). The employer cannot be expected to run from pillar to post verifying the driving licence. 23. In the present case, the employer had satisfied himself regarding genuineness of the driving licence. The employer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 24. In such circumstances, the cross-objections are liable to be dismissed.