Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Kaur And Anr vs Manjit Singh And Ors on 17 October, 2014
Author: Fateh Deep Singh
Bench: Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3888 of 2014
Date of decision: 17th October, 2014
Ved Kaur and another
Appellants
Versus
Manjit Singh and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, Advocate for the appellants.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.
Appellant-claimants Ved Kaur and her husband Om Parkash, still not satisfied with the award of `1,99,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat dated 08.07.2013, have come up before this Court in this appeal.
Upon hearing Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, Advocate for the appellants. It is writ large on the record as has come in the evidence of the claimants that deceased Monu along with three others was going on one motorcycle (in short the motorcycle) bearing registration No.HR-10R-5012 to village Deepalpur, District Sonepat on 27.10.2011 when they met with an accident at Vardhan Chowk, G.T. Road, RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.10 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court FAO No.3888 of 2014 2 Kishora, Police Station Murthal with a car bearing registration No.CH- 03K-9449 (in short the car) being driven by respondent Manjit Singh resulting in death of the riders.
It has very well come in the cross-examination of the claimants as PW-1 and PW-2 that Monu was aged about 21 years, working with a Private Security Agency and had admitted in the cross- examination that at the time of accident there were four persons sitting on the motorcycle and which has led to the conclusions being drawn by the Tribunal that they were thus guilty of contributory negligence. The same is in violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a Division Bench view of our own High Court in the case of 'Kanti Devi Sikarwar and others v. Om Parkash and others' 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 18 has held it so. Thus, the contention of the counsel that such a conclusion by the Tribunal was erroneous, falls to the ground.
The other line of arguments made by appellants' counsel that the Tribunal has not correctly taken into consideration the dependency upon the deceased and has awarded too meager a compensation, cannot sustain. Mother of deceased Monu as PW-2 has brought about that the deceased was earning `9,000/- per month and the post mortem report Ex.P8 mentions his age to be 20 years which has been considered and accepted and the salary certificate so relied by the claimants Ex.P4 has been held by the Tribunal to have not been proved as per law and did not consider it to be a legitimate/legal piece of evidence and has drawn the conclusion by RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.10 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court FAO No.3888 of 2014 3 taking the notional income of the deceased to be `5,000/- per month in the scale of a labourer. The Tribunal has drawn annual dependency of the mother upon the deceased to be `30,000/- and taking her age to be 60 years has applied the multiplier of 9, besides awarding loss of estate and funeral expenses to the tune of `15,000/-, and has awarded compensation totaling `2,85,000/- and after holding it to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 30% had deducted 30% out of this total amount and awarded `1,99,500/-, however, the Tribunal ought to have halved the amount in view of the categorical findings that it was a clear case of contributory negligence by the deceased motorcyclist.
Thus, from the overall appreciation of the case of two sides, the Tribunal has rightly held the accident to be a case of contributory negligence and in the absence of any cogent evidence of avocation and income of the deceased has correctly applied the principle of earnings of a labourer and has come to a totally judicious decision which does not call for any interference.
Thus, there being no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE October 17, 2014 rps RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.10 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court