Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab Etc vs Sharda Kumari Etc on 24 December, 2014
FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at
Chandigarh
FAO-2084-1996(O&M)
Date of decision: 24.12.2014
State of Punjab and another ..Appellants
Versus
Sharda Kumari and others ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahavir S. Chauhan
Present: Mr. N.K.Verma, DAG,Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Basatia, Advocate
for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
for respondent No.6
******
Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.(Oral)
Chhajju Ram, aged about 41 years, working as Inspector Grade-II, in Punjab State Cooperative Department, Dina Nagar and earning a salary of Rs. 3,094/- p.m. was going on 17.1.1992 to Dina Nagar on a two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. PJU 7671 while carrying Prem Nath on the pillion. While driving the scooter at a moderate speed and on the correct left hand side of the road, when he reached near Octroi post in the area of village Ram Nagar at about 11 A.M., another two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 driven rashly and negligently by Kishan Chand respondent No.4 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 2 Gurdaspur (for short,''the Tribunal''), came there and struck against the scooter which Chhajju Ram (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') was driving. As a result, deceased fell on the road. In the meantime, a bus of Punjab Roadways bearing registration No. PBN 7290 being driven by Harbhajan Singh respondent No.4 came from Dina Nagar side in a rash and negligent manner and crushed the deceased under its wheels. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR No. 18 dated 17.1.1992.
Applicants, namely, Sharda Kumari widow, Parminder Kumar and Rupinder Kumar minor sons of the deceased brought claim application No. 13 of 1992 (RBT No.30 of 1993) to seek compensation alleging loss of dependency.
The application was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein all the allegations of the applicants were denied besides pleading certain preliminary objections.
Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
1. Whether Chhajju Ram died in a motor vehicle accident on 17.1.1992 on account of the driving of bus No. PBN 7290 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently?OPA
2. Whether Kishan Chand respondent No.4 drove his scooter No. PB-06-6169 rashly and negligent and struck his scooter against the scooter of the deceased and consequently the deceased was crushed under bus No. PBN 7290 driven by NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 3 respondent No.1?OPA.
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?OPA
4. Relief.
Both the sides adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas.
Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence in the light of submissions made at the bar returned findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 holding respondents Harbhajan Singh and Kishan Chand responsible for causing the unfortunate occurrence which pre- maturely terminated Chhajju Ram. While issue No.3 was disposed of by holding that the applicants were entitled to receive a compensation amounting to Rs. 3,60,000/- by taking income of the deceased as Rs. 3,094/- p.m., by deducting 1/3rd therefrom as expenditure incurred by the deceased upon himself and applying a multiplier of 15. Accordingly, the claim application was allowed vide award dated 13.12.1995.
To challenge award dated 13.12.1995, FAO-2084-1996 has been brought by the State of Punjab and General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot, wherein the applicants have preferred Cross-objections No. 75-CII of 1996 under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short,''CPC'').
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is argued by Mr. N.K.Verma, learned Deputy Advocate NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 4 General,Punjab that as per case of the applicants themselves, scooter which the deceased was driving was hit by scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 being driven by Kishan Chand respondent and as such, the driver of the Punjab Roadways bus which incidently came there, after the accident between the two scooters had taken place and could not be stopped as the accident was sudden and abrupt, could not be held liable for causing the unfortunate occurrence and that being so, no liability could be fastened upon the appellant, i.e., State of Punjab and the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot. On behalf of the applicants,it is argued that the learned Tribunal while assessing compensation payable to the applicants has not taken into consideration the permissible additions to the assessed loss of dependency and has not allowed any compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and expenditure on last rites of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has however, argued that there is no evidence available on record to show that deceased died on account of the hit which the scooter he was driving, by scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 and, in fact, life out of the deceased was eased out by the Punjab Roadways bus that crushed him and as such, the amount of compensation has to be paid by the State of Punjab and no liability whatsoever, can be put upon the insurer of the vehicle.
Nothing more has been urged on either side.
NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 5 It is not in dispute that deceased was riding scooter bearing registration No. PJU 7671 and it was hit by another scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 driven by Kishan Chand respondent No.5 herein and that the bus bearing registration No. PBN 7290 suddenly reached there and crushed the deceased under its wheels. It could not be stopped being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Harbhajan Singh respondent No.4 herein. The circumstances fall in the description of the maxim res ipsa locquitur which means that the circumstances speak for themselves. To translate the maxim in the context of the occurrence in question, while there is no dispute that the two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 had hit the scooter which the deceased was driving, from the assertion that the bus bearing registration No. PBN 7290 could not be stopped even though it has been admitted by Harbhajan Singh while appearing as RW1 before the learned Tribunal that he had seen the accident having taken place between the two wheeler scooter, leads to the conclusion that the driver of that bus was not maintaining safe distance between the scooter going ahead of it and the bus or say, the bus was tailgating the scooter going ahead of it. To make the things clearer, the very fact that driver of the bus in question could not stop the bus before the deceased was crushed under its tyres, leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
Even otherwise, it has been admitted by respondent Harbhajan Singh while appearing as RW1 before the learned NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 6 Tribunal that he was facing criminal proceedings under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on account of death of deceased Chhajju Ram in the occurrence. It is no body's case that Harbhajan Singh made a grievance before the police authorities that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the FIR and that he was falsely implicated in the case. From this circumstance alone, a presumption arises that Harbhajan Singh respondent was also negligent in driving the bus in question. Reference in this respect may be made to Girdhari Lal vs. Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others vs. Kewal Ram and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others vs. Om Parkash and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The PLR 461.
As regards contention put forth on behalf of the insurer of two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 that the entire liability should fall upon the State of Punjab and General Manager,Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot it may be stated that this argument is not available to the insurer for the reasons that it has decided not to challenge the findings of the learned Tribunal fastening liability upon all the respondents before it. In the consequence, no fault can be found in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding drivers of the scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-6169 and Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration No. PBN 7290 responsible for the accident in question.
Now comes the question of adequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 7
Income of the deceased being Rs.3,094/- p.m. and deduction of 1/3rd therefrom as expenditure of the deceased upon himself are not in dispute. Assessment of loss of dependency by the learned Tribunal @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. has also remained unchallenged. To the loss of dependency so assessed by the learned Tribunal, 30% thereof requires to be added towards future prospects. This brings loss of dependency to Rs.2,600/- p.m. or say Rs.31,200/- p.a. Multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Tribunal though is on the higher side as compared to the multiplier available in respect of deceased between the age group of 41 to 45 in terms of Smt. Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104, respondents before the learned Tribunal have chosen not to assail selection of the said multiplier and as such I am not inclined to interfere with the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. By applying multiplier of 15 to the loss of dependency, compensation payable on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,68,000/-. In addition to it, Sharda Kumari, widow of the deceased is entitled to another amount of Rs. One lac on account of loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- as expenditure on last rites of the deceased. Applicants Parminder Kumar and Rupinder Kumar are also entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. One lac on account of loss of love and affection and another sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. Thus, calculated compensation payable to the applicants comes to Rs.6,98,000/-.
The amount of compensation as afore-stated shall be NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 8 inclusive of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Applicants shall also be entitled to costs of this appeal which are assessed at Rs.2,200/-.
The appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned award in the afore-stated terms.
December 24, 2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN)
nk JUDGE
NIRMAL KANT
2015.01.13 10:27
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh