Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Manjit Kaur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 7 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996ACJ859, (1996)114PLR77
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. By this judgment FAO Nos. 640 and 1094 of 1995 are being decided as they are preferred against the same award passed by the Claims Tribunal on January 17, 1994, in connection with claim petition No. 19 of 1993 filed by Smt. Manjit Kaur, Miss Kanwaljit Kaur, and Gurdeep Singh against the State of Punjab, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, and Kartar Singh driver.
2. The backdrop of the case is that the aforementioned claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that claimant No.1 is the widow of Gyani Tejinder Singh and claimants 2 and 3 are their children. On October 19, 1992, Gyani Tejinder Singh started from his house to reach his office and boarded Punjab Roadways bus No. PJG-443 near Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
Manmohan Singh Khanna, Prof. Mukhtiar Singh and Avtar Singh also boarded this bus from Ranjit Avenue. The bus reached Bus Stand, Amritsar. Passengers started alighting therefrom. At about 9 A.M. the deceased was also alighting from the bus when the driver of the bus Kartar Singh drove the bus rashly and negligently. The deceased fell down from the bus and was dragged by the wheels. He sustained various injuries and became unconscious. Avtar Singh took him to Hartej Nursing Home. The doctor gave him first aid and referred him to Kakkar Hospital, Amritsar. Thereafter Tejinder Singh was admitted in Kakkar Hospital on October 19, 1992. He remained in this hospital till October 21, 1992, and was subjected to two operations. His condition did not improve. Even after coming back home, he was continuously taking treatment. The claimants spent Rs. 85,000/- on his treatment. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in this accident on January 5, 1993.
3. It was also pleaded that Tejinder Singh was aged about 52 years at the time of his death. He was working as typist in the office of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee and was getting salary of about Rs. 1500/-. He knew shorthand also and was running a shorthand and Typing College at home. He was also working with some lawyers. Thus, his total income from all the sources was about Rs. 5,000/- per month. If he would have survived till the age of superannuation, he would have earned other benefits of service also. He would have got gratuity and provident fund. Other family members of Tejinder Singh died after reaching the age-group of 70-72. Tejinder Singh was contributing about Rs. 4,000/- for the maintenance of the household. Thus, the claimants claimed compeasation of Rs. 11 lacs.
4. The State of Punjab filed written statement, denied all the allegations made in the claim petition and also raised a preliminary objection that the claim petition is barred by limitation. It was specifically admitted that on November 19, 1992, the said bus came from Ajnala to Amritsar. It was being driven by Kartar Singh respondent, but this bus did not stop at Ranjit Avenue. No passenger boarded the bus at that place. It was also denied that the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Gyani Tejinder Singh and are entitled to get compensation.
Issues were framed. Parties adduced their evidence.
5. On scanning the evidence very minutely, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that because of the rash and negligent driving of driver Kartar Singh of said bus at the bus stand, at the time when deceased Tejinder Singh was alighting from the bus, he sustained injuries in this accident and succumbed to these injuries on January 5, 1993. The Claims Tribunal also held that Tejinder Singh was drawing salary of Rs. 2142/- per month. The Claims Tribunal disbelieved this evidence that the deceased was running a Typing College or he was getting Rs. 1000/- per month from two advocates examined by the claimants. Considering that he must be doing some typing work apart from his official duty, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs. 2,000/-. Considering that at the time of this accident, Tejinder Singh was aged 52 years, multiplier of 10 was adopted. Rs. 73,300/- are also awarded as treatment expenses. Thus, a total award of Rs. 3,13,307/- was given in favour of the claimants. The claim petition was held to be not barred by limitation.
6. Aggrieved by this award the claimants have filed FAO No. 640 of 1995 where in they have challenged that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed their dependency at Rs. 2,000/-. Joginder Singh was earning round about Rs. 5000/- per month. He had three dependants. Therefore, even l/3rd amount could not have been spent by him on himself. It is also objected that multiplier of 10 is wrongly adopted. The deceased was only 52 years and, therefore, minimum multiplier of 12 should have been adopted.
7. In FAO No. 1094 of 1995 the State of Punjab and General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, have assailed the Claims Tribunal's award alleging that there was no reliable evidence on record to arrive at this conclusion that Tejinder Singh sustained injuries in any accident, which occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by driver Kartar Singh. No. FIR was lodged. No criminal case was registered against driver Kartar Singh. It is also alleged that even (he evidence adduced by the claimants is not convincing and clinching on the point that Tejinder Singh died of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The quantum of compensation and adopting multiplier of 10 are also assailed.
8. In FAO No. 1094 of 1995 the appellants' learned counsel vehemently argued that immediately after the accident no FIR was lodged. No criminal case was registered against driver Kartar Singh. The learned counsel contended that had there been any such road accident because the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by driver Kartar Singh, definitely the eye-witnesses of the accident would have lodged some report with the police.
9. The claimants have examined Avtar Singh AW-7 to prove this accident. This witness has stated that he and the deceased boarded the said bus from Ranjit Avenue and they alighted from the bus at Bus Stand Amritsar. Avtar Singh has testified that when Tejinder Singh was alighting from the bus, the driver suddenly drove the bus. Tejinder Singh fell down from the bus and was run over by the said bus. Avtar Singh AW-7 has admitted in unequivocal terms that he never lodged any report with the police of this accident. Appellants, learned counsel valiantly argued that on this count alone, this evidence adduced by the claimants is unbelievable as it is contrary to the natural human conduct.
10. Claimants' learned counsel pointed out that no doubt, Avtar Singh AW-7 has admitted that he did not lodge any report, but claimant Manjit Kaur AW-6 has categorically stated that she went to lodge the report at the police station. Her report was not written. She sent written report Mark 'X' to the S.S.P. Ravinder Kumar AW-4 has proved that this report Mark 'X' was received in the office of the S.S.P. on November 18, 1992, and it was sent to the S.H.O. Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar, for investigation on November 20, 1992, but thereafter no action was taken by the police. So whatever the wife of this injured person could do, she did. Further he pointed out that it is not necessary that if FIR is not lodged, it cannot be believed that the person sustained injuries in some vehicular accident. He further pointed out that even from the statements of other witnesses it is proved by the claimants that Tejinder Singh sustained injuries in this road accident. He referred to the statements of Dr. Tejinder Nagpal AW-9, Dr. V.P. Sanan AW-10 and Dr. S.S. Sandhu AW-11. Bed head ticket of Tejinder Singh with all papers is on the record, wherein while writing the history of the patient it is specifically mentioned that he sustained in juries in a road accident on October 19, 1992, as is evident from page 5 of the bed head ticket Exhibit AW-11/A.
11. The above assaillment is devoid of any substance. No doubt, no FIR was lodged immediately after the accident, but from the medical evidence on record it is evident that condition of Tejinder Singh was precarious. He was hovering between life and death. Therefore, if eye-witness Avtar Singh AW-7, who is a neighbour of Tejinder Singh and his wife Manjit Kaur AW-6, could not lodge the report of this accident immediately after the accident or even thereafter, it cannot be said that the claimants have failed to prove that Tejinder Singh sustained the injuries mentioned in his bed head ticket in this vehicular accident. In the bed head ticket there is an entry of this accident. This entry was made on October 19, 1992. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is an afterthought or a cooked up story made by claimant Manjit Kaur to claim compensation from the respondents. It is also supported by various leave petitions submitted in the office of Tejinder Singh, which are proved by respondents' witness Jagjit Singh RW-1, who is a clerk of the office of deceased Tejinder Singh. From the leave petitions submitted on record, it is evident that earlier from October 15, 1992, to October 18, 1992, the deceased was on leave, but in the first leave petition there is no mention of the accident, but in the second leave petition, whereby leave from October 19, 1992, was sought, there is a specific mention of this road accident. In the petition Mark 'X' the number of the said bus and name of driver Kartar Singh are specifically mentioned. Admittedly, the claimants are not inimical to driver Kartar Singh RW-2, which even he had to admit. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned Claims Tribunal has not fallen into any error in holding that Tejinder Singh sustained these injuries in this vehicular accident, which took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by driver Kartar Singh.
12. Respondent-appellants' learned counsel further submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record that Tejinder Singh died because of the injuries sustained by him in the said road accident. Learned counsel referred to the statements of Dr. S.S. Sandhu AW-11 and Dr. V.P.Sanan A.W.10. Dr. V.P. Sanan A.W. 10 has admitted that at the time of discharge the patient had improved considerably. Dr. S.S. Sandhu AW-11 has testified that after surgery the patient fully recovered from the orthopaedic point of view. No doubt, Dr. Sandhu A.W.ll has admitted in cross-examination that after surgery the patient fully recovered from orthopaedic point of view. He has further stated that he showed uneventful recovery from the orthopaedic point of view. But Tejinder Singh sustained serious injuries, which are proved by Dr. V.P. Sanan A-10. Recovery from orthopaedic point of view is different from overall recovery of the patient. There is no suggestion even that after being discharged from the hospital, Tejinder Singh developed any other complication resulting in his death. No doubt, he was discharged from the hospital on November 21, 1992, thereafter one month he was at home. Manjit Kaur AW-6 has specifically stated that during this period also Tejinder Singh was regularly getting treatment. All the receipts of purchase of medicines are on record. The bed head ticket is also on record, which shows that in this accident his Urethra and bladder were ruptured. His pelvis and neck of right femur were fractured and he was having Retroperitoneal haemotoma. He was aged 52 years. Considering these injuries and the treatment that he took in the hospital, it cannot be assumed that he died of some other complication or injury, which is not even suggested. The learned Claims Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion that Tejinder Singh died because of the injuries sustained by him in this road accident. I see no reason to set aside this finding.
13. In FAO No. 640 of 1995 the claimant-appellants learned counsel vehemently commented upon the Claims Tribunal's award so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. He pointed out that Manjit Kaur AW-6 has proved that Tejinder Singh was not only serving with Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee and was getting salary therefrom but was also running a Typing College and was doing typing work of two Advocates and in all he was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. She has also stated that Tejinder Singh was giving Rs. 4000/- to her for household expenses. The claimants have examined Shri G.B. Singh Advocate AW-8 and Shri N.S. Kamboj AW-5 Advocate. Both these witnesses have clearly stated that Tejinder Singh was doing some typing work in their offices also and was getting Rs. 1,000/-each from them. According to learned counsel the Claims Tribunal has not considered this evidence and has simply disbelieved the sworn testimony of these witnesses on the ground that since father-in-law and brother-in-law of Manjit Kaur are Advocates, this evidence is of interested nature and is not reliable.
14. This contention has little force. No doubt, Manjit Kaur has stated that her husband was earning about Rs. 5000/- per month and he was giving her Rs. 4000/-per month for household expenses. She has stated that he was running a Typing College. But except this bald statement of Manjit Kaur, there is no evidence on record to prove that Tejinder Singh was running such College/Institute. So far as getting Rs. 1,000/- each from G.B. Singh AW-8 and N.S. Kamboj AW-5, Advocates, is concerned the learned Tribunal has considered that since the deceased was a typist, he must be doing some typing work in his leisure time and, therefore, it determined his monthly income at Rs. 3000/-, though from the statement of Balwinder Singh AW-1 it is proved that Tejinder Singh was getting salary of Rs. 2124/- per month.
15. Claimant-appellants' learned counsel' also commented that the Claims Tribunal has fallen into an error in deducting l/3rd from the total monthly income of deceased Tejinder Singh as he was having three dependants, out of whom two are college/school going children. Therefore, Tejinder Singh could not have spent 1/3rd of his earning on himself.
16. Claimant-appellants' learned counsel also contended that as the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of his death, a multiplier of 12 should have been adopted. In support of his contentions, he has relied on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C.) and Leela Ohri and Ors. v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors., (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 515.
17. Respondent-appellants' learned counsel, relying on Jagwanti Devi and Ors. v. Paramjit Singh and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 575; Surjit Kaur and Ors. v. Harbhajan Singh and Ors., (1995-3) 111 P.L.R. 211, and Shero Devi and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar, (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 541, contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2000/- per month and has rightly adopted a multiplier of 10.
18. In so far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, admittedly father-in-law and brother-in-law of Manjit Kaur are Advocates. W.S. Kamboj A-5 and C.B. Singh AW-8 have stated that Tejinder Singh was doing some typing work in their offices and was getting Rs. 1000/- each per month from their offices, but they have failed to produce any receipt. They have admitted that this amount was being paid to Tejinder Singh by their clients. No such client is examined to prove that he paid any amount as typing charges in any case to deceased Tejinder Singh. Thus, according to me, if the learned Claims Tribunal has not relied on this evidence, it has not fallen into any error. Any-how the Claims Tribunal has considered that Tejinder Singh must be doing some typing work in his leisure time. It has also taken into consideration that in future he could have earned more benefits in his service also. Therefore, though his pay was Rs. 2124/- per month only, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs. 3000/- per month. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that this amount is not assessed properly. In my considered view, this finding is based on the evidence on record, which does not call for any interference.
19. In Susamma Thomas' case (supra) the deceased was aged 39 years. He was drawing salary of Rs. 1032/-. The Apex Court held that he was having a stable job. Considering his future prospects, his monthly income was determined at Rs. 2000/-per month. Dependency was determined at Rs. 1400/- per month and the multiplier of 12 was adopted.
20. In Leela Ohri's case (supra) the deceased was aged 52 and multiplier of 20 was adopted, but in view of Apex Court judgment in Susamma Thomas' case (supra) multiplier of 20 cannot be adopted in this case.
21. In Shew Devi's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has adopted a multiplier of 9 when the age of the deceased was 50 years. No doubt, in this judgment it is held that considering the large number of dependants, personal expenses of the deceased were determined at Rs. 200/- only and out of the monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- dependency was determined at Rs. 1800/-. In that case the dependants were widow, three minor children and three major children, which is not the case here. In this case, there are only three claimants, widow, one son and one daughter.
22. In Jagwanti Devi's case (supra) a Single Bench of this Court has adopted a multiplier of 10 when the age of the deceased was 50 years. In Surjit four's case (supra) the age of the deceased was 29 years and a multiplier of 12 was adopted.
23. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered I view the Claims Tribunal has rightly determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2000/- per month and has rightly adopted multiplier of 10.
24. Claimant-appellants' learned counsel lastly argued that if the deceased would have served till the age of superannuation, he would have received pension, gratuity, and provident fund. There is no evidence that any provident fund was being deducted from the deceased's salary or was being deposited in his account by his employer. From the statement of AW-1 Balwinder Singh it is evident that Tejinder Singh's job was not pensionable. Manjit Kaur AW-6 has admitted that she got Rs. 10,000/-. RW-1 Jagjit Singh, Clerk of the office, of deceased Tejinder Singh, has proved that gratuity amount was paid to the widow of Tejinder Singh. Thus, it is obvious that there is no evidence that any provident fund was payable to Tejinder Singh or after his death to his heirs. His job was non-pensionable and full amount of gratuity has been paid to claimant-Manjit Kaur. Hence under these heads the claimants are now not entitled to get any amount of compensation.
25. Thus, in my considered view, the award given by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference with regard to any finding. All the findings are based on cogent and reliable evidence. The facts and evidence are properly weighed and appreciated. Accordingly, finding no merit in both the appeals, they are hereby dismissed. No costs.
26. Before parting with this judgment, I consider it necessary to comment on certain glaring flaws in the method of recording evidence by the lower Courts. In most of the appeals I am finding these defects. Hence I am constrained to remark that whenever the Courts below record the evidence, they should follow below-noted guidelines:-
(1) In the Zimini order the name of the counsel appearing for the parties should be specifically mentioned. (2) The statements of witnesses should be para-phrased.
(3) Each page of the deposition of the witnesses should be initialled by the Judge.
(4) In the beginning of the statement, age and occupation, of the witness should be specifically mentioned. (5) When cross examination starts putting 'XXX' above is not sufficient. The name of the counsel cross-examining the witness should be mentioned. (6) Documents should be marked in seriatim and should not be marked independently for each witness. (7) Documents, when exhibited in evidence, should bear the prescribed seal as per Rule 14 of Chapter 1-G of Rules and Orders of High Court Volume-I, duly signed by the Judge.
27. The Registrar is hereby directed to circulate these guidelines to all the Judges/Magistrates working in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.