Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.R.T.C. Through Its Managing Dir. , Ptl vs Reena Devi And Ors on 11 September, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2251-2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 11, 2014
Ravinder Kaur and others
...Appellants
Versus
Saraj Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate,
for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by Ravinder Kaur (widow), Ravneet Kaur (minor daughter) and Gurbax Singh (minor son) of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu (since deceased) challenging the award dated 05.12.2000, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') whereby a compensation of `16,12,800/- only along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization was granted in favour of the appellants and against the respondents.
2. Though the accident in question is not in dispute, but to link the present judgment, it is necessary to give the brief description of the entire case. Gurbhej Singh Sidhu (since deceased) was serving as Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 2 Electrical Engineer with the Punjab State Electricity Board and was posted at Sub-Division, Ferozepur Cantt. At the time of his death, he was drawing the salary of `18,420/- per month. On 28.06.1997 at about 8:00 p.m., Gurbhej Singh, alongwith Balwinder Singh and Partap Singh was going to Gurudwara Shri Nanaksar Sahib in a Maruti car, bearing Registration No. PB-05-E- 0313, which was owned by Saraj Singh and Rakesh Kumar (respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively). The said car was being driven by Baj Singh son of Behal Singh. Mehal Singh, Sarpanch, Harbans Singh, Mohinder Singh and Rachhpal Singh were following the above said Maruti car, in a Jeep driven by Mahal Singh. At about 9:00 p.m., when the above said vehicles reached Ferozepur-Ludhiana Road, then a truck, bearing Registration No. PUU-2943 was found parked with its parking lights 'on' by the side of the road. Since the Maruti car was being driven in a rash or negligent manner, at a very high speed and without observing the traffic rules, and while passing the truck, it (Maruti car) hit the rear portion of the parked truck with great velocity. Resultantly, Gurbhej Singh Sidhu and Baj Singh, Driver of the Maruti car, received multiple injuries and died on the spot. The other occupants of the Maruti car, namely, Balwinder Singh and Partap Singh, also sustained multiple injuries and were admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where Baj Singh was also declared brought dead. The accident was witnessed by Mahal Singh, the driver of the Jeep and Harbans Singh, Mohinder Singh and Rachhpal Singh, occupants of the jeep, which was following PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 3 the ill-fated Maruti car,. The matter was reported to the police and after registration of the FIR, the autopsy on the corpus of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu was conducted.
3. After collecting the papers, the appellants filed the claim petition alleging that Gurbhej Singh Sidhu was aged about 40 years at the time of his death; all the claimants were dependents on his earnings; in addition to his regular job, Gurbhej Singh Sidhu (since deceased) was also earning about `2,000/- per month from his agricultural land, measuring about 20 acres; and that in view of bright career of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu, he could have reached up to the post of Chief Engineer, Punjab. The appellants claimed `36,35,600/- as compensation.
4. On notice, the owners of the offending Maruti car and its insurer appeared before the learned Tribunal. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owners), it was admitted that Gurbhej Singh Sidhu died on 28.06.1997, at about 9:00 p.m., near village Ghal Kalan in the accident involving Maruti Car No. PB-05E-0313. Since the car was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, therefore, the amount of compensation was to be paid by the said insurance company.
5. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company admitted the accident involving Maruti Car No. PB-05E-0313 with Truck No. PUU-2943 resulting into death of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu, husband of Appellant No. 1, and father of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. However, it denied its responsibility to pay the compensation since Baj Singh was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 4 It was also averred that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Truck No. PUU-2943, which was wrongly parked on the side of the road without any indicator etc.
6. The claimants filed a rejoinder and reiterated the facts as narrated in the claim petition.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the death of Gurbhej Singh deceased on 28.6.1997 at about 8.00/9.00 P.M. is the result of rash and negligent driving of Car No. PB-05E/0313 by S. Baj Singh, if so its effect ? OPA.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to receive and recover compensation, is so, how much and against whom? OPA.
3. Whether Baj Singh driver was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time, if so to what effect? OPR-3.
4. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this case as alleged? OPR-3.
5. Relief."
8. In support of the claim petition, Ravinder Kaur, widow of Gurbhej Dingh Sidhu, appeared as AW-4 and reiterated the facts as enshrined in the claim petition. Mahal Singh, an eye- witness, was examined as AW-1, who fully supported the claimants' case. Hitesh Malhotra appeared as AW-2 while Amar Singh appeared as AW-3 and both these witnesses produced on PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 5 record the details of the pay/emoluments and the service records of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu. The relevant jamabandi for the year 1996-97, the copy of Degree of Engineering of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu and a copy of the postmortem report were also produced.
9. The respondents produced Jiwan Kumar Garg as RW-1, who produced his report (Ex.R1). The report of the District Transport Officer (Ex.R2) and the copy of the Insurance Policy (Ex.R3) were also placed on record.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, the learned Tribunal held that Baj Singh, driver of the Maruti car was responsible for the death of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu and Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.
11. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal in Para No. 13 of its award has taken into account the total monthly income of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu as `16,800/-. 1/3rd of the monthly income was deducted for the personal expenses of Gurbhej Singh Sidhu, and while applying the multiplier of 12, the learned Tribunal, awarded the amount as has been mentioned in the initial part of this judgment. It was also observed that due to revision of the pay scales the deceased was entitled to receive monthly emoluments of `18,000/- had be been alive.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants on the strength of the Supreme Court judgments delivered in the cases of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 6 R.C.R. (Civil) 77, Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54, and Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Das and others, (2013) 7 SCC 476, submits that the pay scales of the Government employees were revised with effect from 01.01.1996 and, as such, the Gurbhej Singh Sidhu had to get `18,000/- per month. He (deceased) was also earning `2,000/- per month from his agricultural land, but the learned Tribunal has calculated it to be `1,000/- per month, the same be taken as held by the Tribunal @ Rs.1,000/- per month. It was also submitted that 50% of monthly income should be added as future prospects after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses and multiplier of 15 should be applied. He further contends that appropriate amount be also granted under heads of consortium, last rights and love and affection. He further contends that during the relevant time Gurbhej Singh Sidhu was to pay income tax @ `15,256/- per assessment year.
13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has not disputed the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra), Rajesh (supra) and Vimal Kanwar (supra).
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
15. It is the conceded position that Gurbhej Singh Sidhu (since deceased) was aged about 40 years at the time of his death; it has come on record that due to revision of the pay PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 7 scales Gurbhej Singh Sidhu (since deceased) was entitled to receive monthly emoluments of `18,000/- had be been alive, and liable to pay income tax of `15256/- during the Assessment Year 1998-99; he was also earning `1,000/- per month from his agricultural land; and that all the appellants were dependent upon his earnings.
16. This Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation as per the calculations made in the following table:
Sr. Heads % / fraction / Detail of Amount
No. multiplier calculation (in `)
applied
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
1 Income of the deceased Per month 18000
2 Less income tax, payable Per month 1271.33
3 Net income of the Per month 16728.67
deceased
4 Future prospects 50% of 3(E) 8364.33
5 Monthly income after 3(E) + 4(E) 25093.00
adding future prospects
6 Income from Agriculture Per month 1000
7 Total 5(E) + 6(E) 26093.00
8 Monthly personal 1/3 of 7(E) 8697.66
expenses of the deceased
9 Net dependency (per 7(E) -8(E) 17395.33
month)
10 Multiplier to be applied 15
11 Compensation after 9(E) X 12 X 10(C) 3131160.60
applying the multiplier
12 Loss of consortium 100000
13 Love, Care and Affection 200000
14 Funeral expenses 25000
Total Compensation 3456160.6
awarded
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2014.09.17 15:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
FAO-2251-2011 (O&M) 8
17. As a sequel to the above, this appeal is partly allowed. A sum of `34,56,160/- is awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Since the insurance of the offending vehicle has not been denied by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, therefore, the said amount shall be payable by respondent No. 3-insurance company. The amount awarded by this Court shall be disbursed to the appellants/claimants as per the directions in para No. 7 of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE September 11, 2014 Pkapoor PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.09.17 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document