Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4171 (PNJ)

Dharam Pal Sood & Others v. Baldev Singh & Others

2018-10-23

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2018
JUDGMENT Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral) - This is claimants appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Briefly, it may be noticed that a claim petition under the Motor vehicles Act was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of death of Deepak Sood in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 11.07.1986. Claimants were the parents and two brothers of the deceased. It was asserted in the claim petition that on 11.07.1986 while the deceased was proceeding on a bicycle, the offending bus bearing registration No. PBE-4121 belonging to Punjab Roadways Tarn Taran struck against Deepak Sood and on account of which he suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. FIR No. 123, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar without any delay. 3. Claim petition having been contested, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether Deepak Sood died as a result of rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1 driving Bus No. PBE 4121? OPA 2. Whether the accident was due to the negligence of Deepak Sood, deceased? DPR 3. To what compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled? DPA 4. Relief." 4. Insofar as issue No. 1 is concerned, findings were returned in favour of the claimants and it was held that death of Deepak Sood occurred on account of injuries suffered in the accident dated 11.07.1986 involving the offending bus and on account of rash and negligent driving by the Driver, namely, Baldev Singh. 5. Insofar as compensation amount is concerned, the Tribunal vide award dated 07.09.1990 awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-in favour of the claimants. The liability to pay the compensation amount was fastened jointly and severally upon the respondents. 6. Since the only issue arisen in the instant appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation, I have heard counsel for the appellants as also Mr. TPS Chawla, learned DAG, Punjab representing the contesting respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. It may be noticed that even though, respondent No. 1 was duly served but no representation was caused on his behalf and he was, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2018 passed by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was 17 years of age. 7. It may be noticed that even though, respondent No. 1 was duly served but no representation was caused on his behalf and he was, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2018 passed by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was 17 years of age. The Tribunal has neither assessed the notional income nor applied the multiplier method while calculating the amount of compensation. It is argued that the compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is much on the lower side. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the deceased was a non-earning member and no evidence was produced with regard to any avocation/employment being pursued by the deceased. Further urged that it was the stand of the claimants themselves that the deceased was a student and as such, the Tribunal has taken a pragmatic view while assessing the amount of compensation and awarding amount of Rs. 40,000/-. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record as also the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation amount would have to be revisited and reassessed. 11. In the facts of the present case, the claimants/appellants in the claim petition had asserted the age of the deceased to be 17 years as on the date of accident. He was further stated to be a student of Class 12th. In support of such assertion, claimants had examined Ujagar Singh AW1, Class Teacher of the deceased and who deposed that Deepak Sood (deceased) was a student of Central School II, Jalnadhar Cantt and was an outstanding student and sportsman. Father of the deceased Dharam Pal while stepping into the witness box as AW3 has corroborated the version taken up in the claim petition i.e. the deceased to be a student of 12th standard. Under such circumstances, the version set up by the claimants/appellants with regard to age of the deceased being 17 years approximately would be accepted. 12. Admittedly, deceased was a student of 12th standard and was not an earning member. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was obligated to assess the notional income and thereafter to apply the multiplier. 13. Under such circumstances, the version set up by the claimants/appellants with regard to age of the deceased being 17 years approximately would be accepted. 12. Admittedly, deceased was a student of 12th standard and was not an earning member. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was obligated to assess the notional income and thereafter to apply the multiplier. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & another v. Lala & others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 276 had assessed the notional income of a child of 10 years of age and who was killed in an accident as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. In that case, accident had taken place in the year 1992. In the present case, the accident is of the year 1986. In an overview of the matter, it would be safe to assess the notional income of the deceased, aged 17 years to be Rs. 20,000/- per annum keeping in view the date/year of the accident. 14. In the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Apex Court Court had applied the multiplier as per age of the claimants. However, in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 447, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court had held that the multiplier is to be applied as per age of the deceased. In the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, a multiplier of 18 was suggested for the deceased within the age group of 15-25 years. In the present case as well by following the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma(supra), multiplier of 18 would be applied by accepting the age of the deceased to be 17 years at the time of accident. In addition thereto, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads of funeral expenses. 15. In view of the above, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation amount is re-assessed as follows: S. No. Computation/Head Revised calculation 1. Notional income per annum Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 2. Compensation after applying multiplier of 18 20,000 x 18 = 3,60,000/- 3. Conventional Heads i.e. funeral expenses. Rs. 10,000/- 4. Total 3,60,000 + 10,000 = 3,70,000/- 16. Notional income per annum Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 2. Compensation after applying multiplier of 18 20,000 x 18 = 3,60,000/- 3. Conventional Heads i.e. funeral expenses. Rs. 10,000/- 4. Total 3,60,000 + 10,000 = 3,70,000/- 16. The afore calculated/enhanced compensation amount be released in favour of the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till actual realization. 17. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.