Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Vijay Lakshmi And Others vs Shri Ram Parvesh And Others on 14 May, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
FAO No.323 of 1999(O&M)
Date of Decision: May 14, 2012
Smt.Vijay Lakshmi and others
... Appellants
Versus
Shri Ram Parvesh and others
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
In this claimants' appeal filed against the judgment-cum- award dated August 11, 1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short `the Tribunal'), the question falling for decision is, as to whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Crane No.DIL-7273 (herein referred as `the offending Crane') by Ram Parvesh or not.
2. The allegations in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were that on April 29, 1993, Harendra Singh (since deceased) along with his friend Arvind Aggarwal (PW5), his wife and daughter was going in gypsy-Jeep No.DL-1C-7361. The vehicle was being driven by Harendra Singh. It was 6/6.15 PM, when the gypsy arrived at ITI Chowk, Karnal, the offending crane carrying damaged oil tanker came at a fast speed from the opposite direction and struck against the gypsy. As a result thereof, the gypsy turned turtle and Harendra Singh was injured and died at the spot.
3. FIR No.308 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered immediately in Police Station City Karnal on the statement of Arvind Aggarwal against Ram Parvesh.
4. Widow, daughter aged 6 years, son aged one year and the mother of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month, that is Rs.60,000/- per annum and after deducting rd 1/3 on account of his self-living expenses, annual dependency was held to be Rs.40,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 32 years, multiplier of 16 was applied and loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.6,40,000/-. In addition thereto, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was assessed towards funeral expenses, that is, an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was assessed as compensation. However, the claim application was dismissed on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the accident had taken place on account of rash or negligent driving of the offending Crane by Ram Parvesh.
6. In appeal before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Crane.
7. The Tribunal while arriving at the above finding observed that there was variation in the description of the accident, narrated in the FIR (Mark-B) and the statement of Arvind Aggarwal (PW5) made before the Tribunal. According to the Tribunal, in the FIR, it was mentioned that the offending crane hit the gypsy and as a result thereof, the gypsy turned turtle, but in the statement made before the Tribunal by Arvind Aggarwal, he described that the accidental oil tanker, which was being carried on the offending crane hit the gypsy. In the site plan (Exhibit P-
1), the gypsy was shown to have turned turtle on the right side of the road on account of which the Tribunal held that the driver of the gypsy (deceased) was driving it at a fast speed.
8. With the assistance of counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the FIR (Mark-B), statement of Arvind Aggarwal (AW5) and the site plan (Exhibit P-1).
9. In the FIR, the occurrence was narrated to the effect that on the fateful day, that is April 29, 1999, Harinder Singh and Arvind Aggarwal were travelling in gypsy, driven by Harinder Singh on its correct side. The offending Crane carrying the damaged oil tanker, struck against the gypsy, as a result of which, the gypsy turned turtle and Harinder Singh died on the spot. In the statement given before the Tribunal, similar version was given. The Tribunal wrongly construed site plan also. In the site plan, it has been shown that the gypsy turned turtle on the extreme left side, that is, berm of the road. It shows that the gypsy was being driven by the deceased on its correct side and that too on the extreme left side.
10. Not only that, on behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been led to show that the driver of the offending crane was not negligent in causing the accident.
11. It is also not in dispute that Ram Parvesh was challaned by the Police for causing the accident. That is a corroborative fact which substantiates that Ram Parvesh was negligent in driving the offending Crane.
12. In this view of the matter, this Court sets aside the finding of the Tribunal qua the negligence of the driver of the offending Crane. It is held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Crane by Ram Parvesh, resulting into death of Harinder Singh.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the same before this Court. He has restricted his submission to the extent that interest on the amount of compensation be also awarded.
14. The submission has substance and deserves to be accepted.
15. This Court has also been informed that during the pendency of the appeal, mother of the deceased (one of the claimants) has died.
16. For the reasons recorded here-in-above, the appeal is partly accepted. Consequently, the appellants - claimants (widow and children) are held entitled to compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till August 11, 2000, (uptill two years after passing of the impugned award on August 11, 1998), against the driver and insurer of the offending Crane, respondents No.1 and 2, who shall be liable to pay jointly and severally. Since the claimant mother has already expired, therefore, 50% of the total compensation shall be paid to the widow and 25%, each, shall be paid to the children.
May 14, 2012 ( NAWAB SINGH )
`gian' JUDGE
Refer to Reporter - Yes/No