Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla Devi And Others vs Iqbal Singh And Others on 28 January, 2014
FAO No.2194 of 1996 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
X-Objection No.73-CII of 1997 in/and
F.A.O. No.2194 of 1996
Date of decision : 28.01.2014
Kamla Devi and others ...... Appellants
versus
Iqbal Singh and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. K.S. Pawar, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4-X-Objectors.
Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation and to modify the award dated 13.03.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak awarding compensation of `3,24,000/- on account of death of Ram Lal aged 30 years. X-objection has also been filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 to discharge the liability of the said respondents and to modify the award accordingly.
Brief facts are that a motor vehicle accident took place on Sharma Ashish 2014.02.11 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2194 of 1996 (O&M) -2- 31.03.1993 on the main road between Rohtak and Moham, near Village Garhi-Meham. A tanker bearing No.HYF-3444 and a truck bearing No.PJB- 4531 had a head-on-collision. Baljit Singh, Cleaner of truck No.PJB-4531, Dalbir Singh driver of truck No.HYF-3444 and another person Ram Lal, an employee of Hafed, who was also travelling in tanker No.HYF-3444 had expired in the said accident at the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as per law laid down in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported as 2013(9) SCC 54, nothing has been awarded on account of loss of consortium. He has further argued that 50% has to be added to the income on account of future prospects.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that nothing has been awarded for love and affection and funeral expenses and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013-3) PLR 776.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5-Insurance Company has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others' case (supra) granted a total amount of `1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and `1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance.
Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has contended that in Vimal Kanwar and others' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of `1 lac to the widow and a sum of `2 lac to the minor girl on account of loss of love and affection, and another sum of `1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow.
Sharma Ashish 2014.02.11 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2194 of 1996 (O&M) -3-
Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, I award `50,000/- to the appellant No.1-widow on account of loss of love and affection and `50,000/- on account of loss of consortium. I further award `50,000/- each to both the sons-appellants No.2 and 3 on account of loss of love and affection. I also add future prospects in the income with the addition of 50% in view of the observations made by this Court in F.A.O. No.2990 of 2011, titled as Manjit Kaur and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, decided on 08.01.2014. I also hold that multiplier of 17 has to be applied instead of 15 in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported as 2009 ACJ 1298. For the purpose of funeral expenses, I award `15,000/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has argued that when the award was rendered an interest of 12% p.a. may have been justified but now the trend is of granting lesser interest.
I find this argument to be valid and consequently ordered that all the enhanced amount shall be paid along with the interest of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that apart from the amounts awarded in favour of the appellants individually, the apportionment and the management of the compensation amount would be as per the direction of the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the X-objectors-respondents No.1 to 4 has argued that the eye witness PW4-Dinesh had deposed that the tanker was being driven very rashly and negligently and he had requested the driver many times to drive carefully but the driver had turned a deaf ear. As per Sharma Ashish 2014.02.11 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2194 of 1996 (O&M) -4- him, therefore, the present was a case where it was the negligence of the tanker driver had been established.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5-insurance company has argued that in the very next breath PW4-Dinesh deposed that the truck was also driven in a rash and negligent manner and therefore if his version has to be believed it has to be believed in its entirety. He has further argued that the accident was a head-on-collusion and on these two facts no fault can be found with the finding of the Tribunal that it was a case of contributory negligence.
I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for respondent No.5-insurance company. It is well known that in a case of head-on-collusion unless the contrary circumstances are shown it would be a case of contributory negligence.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed in the above terms and the X-Objection is dismissed. The award is modified accordingly.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
January 28, 2014 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2014.02.11 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh