Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mrs. Swaran Kanta And Ors. on 12 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997ACJ1347, (1997)117PLR347
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. This is Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the letters Patent filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1985.
2. Brief facts of the case are that claims petition was filed by respondent-Swaran Kanta, widow of deceased Puran Chand, along with her minor children on May 8, 1978, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, on the basis of the death of Puran Chand, who died in a vehicular accident on December 4, 1977 on the relevant night Puran Chand was traveling in Car No. DLB-9186. The accident took place on G.T. Road near village Larsauli, Police Station Ganour, within the district of Sonepat. Claimants pleaded that truck No. HRA-7831 owned by respondent Manohar Lal and driven by respondent Ram Parsad was standing in the middle of the road on the relevant night without taking any precautions, when car No. DLF-5447 driven by Anil Kumar and owned by Inder Singh came from Delhi and struck into it. In the meanwhile truck No. DHG-2801 owned by Messrs Kohli Transport Company and driven by Charan Singh came from Delhi side and struck into the car, which was already standing on the road. The deceased was traveling in the last vehicle, namely, car No. DLB-9186, which also came from Delhi side and struck into the three vehicles, which were standing on the road after being involved in the accident. It was also averred that deceased was earning Rs. 600/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs. One lac.
3. Respondents Manohar Lal, Ram Parsad, Inder Singh, Anil Kumar, Kohli Transport Company and Charan Singh remained absent despite service and hence were proceeded exparte before the Tribunal.
4. Before the learned Tribunal the appellant filed an application Under Section 110-C(II-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for defending the claim petition on merits as their insured Messrs Kohli Transport Company were proceeded exparte. The requisite permission was granted.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident was inevitable one and was not on account of negligence of any of the vehicles involved in the accident.
6. The learned Single Judge, relying on the statements of PW-5 Deep Chand and PW-7 Prem held that car No. DLF-5447 came from behind and hit into the stranded truck No. HRA-783I. Shortly thereafter another truck No. DHG-2801 came and hit into the said car and finally it was car No. DLB-9186 that struck against the said truck because of this accident Puran Chand, who was a passenger in the last car died at the spot. The learned Single Judge observed that according to these witnesses the accident took place within a few minutes. No suggestion was given to these witnesses to the effect that any of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident could or could not have avoided this accident with due care and caution, which they should have been expected to exercise in the circumstances. Balbir Singh, driver of car No. DLB-9186 appeared as RW-2 and explained that when he reached Ganour, he saw a truck parked ahead. A truck and a car had already been involved in accident. When he reached near that place, he wanted to swerve his car to the right hand side but found that a Haryana Roadways bus was coming from opposite direction. Therefore, he could not avert his car too being involved in an accident with the vehicles already piled up there. Thus, according to this witness the accident became inevitable so far as he was concerned.
7. Weighing this evidence the learned Single Judge held that primarily it was the negligence of truck No. HRA-7881 as it was being parked on the road without proper warning and that resulted in all the other vehicles hitting into each other thereafter. Thus, the driver of this truck was negligent. The learned Single Judge also held that so far as truck No. DHG-2801 and car No. DLF-5447 are concerned, the burden was on their drivers to show that despite reasonable care they could not have avoided the accident, but neither of them entered the witness box to narrate their version of the accident. Consequently, the learned Single Judge held that these drivers were also negligent and were responsible for this accident. The driver of car No. DLB-9186 was, however, absolved from blame as he gave a plausible explanation of how this accident became inevitable for him. Thus, the negligence was attributed to drivers of truck No. HRA-7831, truck No. DHG-2801 and car No. DLF-5447.
8. The learned Single Judge also held that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of his death. He was earning Rs. 600/- per month. The dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs. 5000/- per annum. Adopting a multiplier of 16, the claimants were awarded Rs. 80,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.
9. The appellant's learned counsel vehemently assailed the aforementioned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not apportioned the liability of truck No. HRA-7831, truck No. DHG-2801 and car No. DLF-5447, which, according to him, should have been done. He further submitted that if truck No. HRA-7831 would not have been parked in the middle of the road without any indication, car No. DLR-5447 and truck No. DHG-2801 would not have struck into it. Thus, according to him, only driver of truck No. HRA-7831 should have been held guilty of negligence so as this case is concerned. The drivers of car No. DLF-5447 and truck No. DHG-2801 could not have avoided the accident, which became inevitable in the circumstances of the case.
10. No doubt in our considered view the learned Single Judge should have apportioned the extent of negligence attributed to all these three vehicles, as they are held guilty of contributory negligence, but so far as the claimants are concerned, their liability to pay them is undoubtedly joint and several. The claimants are entitled to recover the whole amount of compensation from any of these respondents. For this proposition reference may be made to Bhajan Lal Bishnoi v. Rajasthan Slate Road Transport Corporation, (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 561 and Narinder Pal Singh v. Punjab State, (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 608.
11. So far as extent of liability of the drivers of these three vehicles are concerned, Since they have not entered the witness box to explain under what circumstances car No. DLF-5447 and truck No. DHG-2801 struck into the vehicle in front of them. They have rightly been held guilty of contributory negligence because eye-witnesses PW-5 Deep Chand and PW-7 Prem have testified that these vehicles ' came from behind and all these accidents took place within a few minutes. To avert an accident even a minute is sufficient if the driver is alert and the speed is not very . fast. Thus, in our considered view, the extent of contributory negligence of truck No. HRA-7831, car No. DLF-5447 and truck No. DHG-2801 is determined equally at l/3rd.
12. So far as the extent of liability of the appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants is concerned, the appellant's learned counsel contended strongly that the liability of truck No. DHG-2801 is limited to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- only, but his reference to Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and others, 1981 A.C.J. 507 (S.C.) is apposite. It is evident that on March 2, 1970, Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was further amended and this liability is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. In this judgment the Apex Court has interpreted the words 'in all' occurring in Clause (a) of Section 95(2) and has held that any one accident means accident to any one. The word 'accident' is used in the expression 'any one accident' from the point of view of the claimant and 'in all' implies that insurance company' liability will extend to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of death and injury suffered by each one.
13. Thus, in our considered view, the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, finding no merit in this LPA, it is hereby dismissed with costs, which arc quantified at Rs. 5,000/-
14. The claimants have also filed cross-objections against the said Judgment of the learned Single Judge. They are claiming enhancement of compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of his death. His income is determined at Rs. 600/- per month. The claimants are widow, five minor children and parents of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has determined their dependency at Rs. 425/- per month. Considering the large number of claimants the learned Single Judge should have determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 500/- per month. Even the multiplier of 16 requires to be enhanced. Five dependents are minor children of the deceased and the deceased was aged 31 years only. Hence as per the Second Schedule, multiplier of 17 have been adopted. Thus, in our considered view, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,02,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. The claimants are also held entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation of the said amount.
15. The apportionment of the amount of compensation will be as under :-
Widow Rs. 28,000/-
Each Child at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- (Five) Rs. 60,000/-
Father Rs. 7,000/-
Mother Rs. 7,000/-
As by now all these minor children must have become major, the amount shall be deposited in the names of these children in some nationalised bank for five years. Out of the share of the widow half of the amount will be deposited by her in some nationalised bank for seven years. The widow shall be entitled to withdraw interest on the aforementioned fixed deposit receipts as and when it accrues.
The cross-objections are hereby allowed.