Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Another vs Harbans Kaur And Others on 10 January, 2012
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993(O&M)
DECIDED ON : 10.01.2012
State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
versus
Harbans Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. K. S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 27.11.1992 passed by Shri V. B. Handa, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, vide which claim petition preferred by the widow, minor children and parents of deceased Jagdev Singh was accepted and compensation of ` 2,30,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum was awarded to the claimants.
Briefly stated, Harbans Kaur-widow, Manpreet Kaur- minor daughter, Gurdeep Singh-minor son of Jagdev Singh, Jit Singh-father and Bhajan Kaur-mother of deceased Jagdev Singh filed claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of `30,00,000/- on account of death of Jagdev Singh in a motor vehicular accident.
F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993 (O&M) -2-
It is alleged that on 26.03.1992 at about 11:00 AM, deceased Jagdev Singh was coming back from Ludhiana after selling milk on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HYE-132. When he reached near Octroi Post, Jugiana on G.T.Road, a bus bearing registration No. PB-12-8901 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Karam Singh, came from the opposite side i.e from Delhi side. Respondent Karam Singh brought the bus in wrong lane of G.T Road and dashed his bus against the motorcycle of deceased on which empty drums were loaded. Balwant Singh a close relative of deceased was following his motorcycle on his scooter. He witnessed the occurrence. Jagdev Singh was removed to Mohan Dai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana where he succumbed to his injuries on the next day. On the statement of Balwant Singh, case under Section 304-A IPC was registered against respondent-Karam Singh.
It is further pleaded that Jagdev Singh was 25 years old at the time of his death and was earning ` 15,000/- per month out of which he used to spent ` 10,000/- on the claimants. Therefore, a sum of ` 30,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation along with interest @ 15% per annum.
Notice of the claim petition was given to respondents. Respondent No.1 Karam Singh appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations levelled in the claim petition. However, he admitted the factum of accident but pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993 (O&M) -3- Jagdev Singh. He further pleaded that he was driving the bus at a very slow speed and there was traffic jam on the road. The motorcycle came from the opposite side and suddenly lost his control and struck against the right side of bus of respondent No.1.
Respondents No.2 and 3 filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the deceased was not possessing any driving licence.
On merits it was alleged that deceased was earning `15,000/- per month. The other averments were denied. It was further pleaded that motorcyclist came from the opposite side at a very high speed and suddenly lost his control and struck against the right side of bus.
Rejoinder was filed wherein all the averments made in the written statements were denied and those made in the claim petition were reasserted.
From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the applicants are legal representatives of Jagdev Singh deceased ? OPA
2. Whether Jagdev Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 26.3.92 near Jugiana Octroi Post, Ludhiana on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-12-8901 by respondent No.1 or on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased or of both ? Onus on parties F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993 (O&M) -4-
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondent ? OPA
4. Relief.
In order to prove their case, Harbans Kaur claimant herself appeared as AW-3 and also examined Balwant Singh eye witness as AW-1, Natha Singh as AW-2, Bant Singh as AW-4, Shamsher Singh as AW-6 and Bhupinder Singh as AW-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, respondent No.1 Karam Singh appeared as his own witness.
Learned Tribunal returned the findings on all the issues in favour of claimants and assessed the income of deceased as `1500/- per month. The dependency was taken as ` 1000/- per month and yearly dependency was calculated as ` 12,000/-. The age of deceased was taken as 25 years and multiplier of 18 was applied. In this manner, an amount of ` 2,16,000/- (12,000 x 18) was calculated. ` 3450/- was granted as treatment of deceased in hospital. ` 6,000/- was granted towards medical expenses and `8,000/- was granted for last rites. The claim petition was accepted and awarded a sum of ` 2,30,000/- as compensation. The claimants were also held entitled to claim interest @ 15 % per annum.
F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993 (O&M) -5-
Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 27.11.1992, State of Punjab and General Manager, Punjab Roadways, have preferred the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant/State of Punjab has submitted that to prove the case of prosecution in respect of Issue No.1, the claimants have simply examined Balwant Singh AW-1. The presence of this witness at the spot is doubtful. The accident has taken place due to negligence of deceased and as such, claim petition has been wrongly accepted.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same.
The factum of accident has been admitted by the appellant as well as driver of the offending vehicle. The fact that driver side of the bus struck against the motorcycle is also not disputed. The presence of AW-1 Balwant Singh is natural. More so, when FIR has been registered promptly. So findings of Tribunal on Issue No.1 stand affirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount of compensation assessed is on higher side. It is further contended that there is no age proof in respect of age of the deceased, except post mortem report. The multiplier applied is also on higher side.
I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in that submission also.
The age of deceased has been rightly assessed as 25 F.A.O NO. 1038 OF 1993 (O&M) -6- years on the basis of post mortem report and on the statements of claimants.
Lastly, it is submitted that interest @ 15 % per annum is highly excessive.
I have considered this submission also and find some weight in the same.
The interest @ 15% per annum is on higher side. The ends of justice would be met in case interest is allowed @ 12% per annum which was the bank rate of interest at that time.
In view of the above discussions, except in modification of rate of interest @ 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realisation on the awarded amount, the appeal stands dismissed.
JANUARY 10, 2012 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE