Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Corporation And Anr. vs Ajit Kaur And Ors. on 18 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2008)151PLR537, 2008 A I H C 380, (2008) 3 RECCIVR 29, (2009) 2 ACC 349, (2008) 3 PUN LR 537, (2008) 3 TAC 99
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. This order will dispose of FAO No. 743 of 1974 arising out of MACT Case No. 11 of 1984 titled as Smt. Ajit Kaur v. Municipal Corporation and FAO No. 744 of 1984 arising out of MACT case No. 12 of 1983 titled as Smt. Chanchal Bhalla v. Municipal Corporation as both these claim petitions were disposed of by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by one award dated 4.8.1984.
2. Smt. Ajit Kaur, widow, along with her minor daughters and son filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. five lac) on account of death of Lakhmir Singh, aged 45 years, who was working as an Assistant in the office of District Education Officer (Primary), Amritsar. He was said to be drawing a salary of Rs. 1187.50 whereas the other claim petition was filed by Smt. Chanchal Bhalla widow along with her daughters and sons as well as Leela Wanti, mother of the deceased Shri Dev Raj Bhalla, claiming therein a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) as compensation on account of death of Shri Dev Raj Bhalla in a motor vehicular accident. He was also working as an Assistant in the office of District Education Officer (Primary), Amritsar. It was alleged that Shri Devi Raj Bhalla aged 50 years was drawing a salary of Rs. 1262.50 per month. It was claimed that both the above mentioned persons were killed in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PJE-5510 which was driven by Ajit Singh, respondent No. 3 and this bus belonged to Municipal Corporation.
3. Both the claim petitions were contested by the Municipal Corporation as well as by the driver by filing a joint written statement.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed in the claim petition filed by Smt. Ajit Kaur and others:
1. Whether Lakshmir Singh aged 45 years, was killed due to race and negligent driving of bus No. PJE-5510 by Ajit Singh belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2?
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, are the claimants entitled to the compensation claimed?
5. Mr. R.D.Bawa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal only on issue No. 2. His contention was that the learned Tribunal in the case of Smt. Ajit Kaur and others has wrongly assessed the dependency to be Rs. 1,000/- out of Rs. 1187.50. This contention does not carry any weight as keeping in view the size of the family of the deceased, the learned tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the dependency was Rs. 1,000/- per month. The multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal can also not be said to be bad.
6. It may also be noticed that the learned Tribunal calculated the dependency for the period remaining beyond age of retirement three years @ Rs. 500/- per month. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and fair. Even in the case of Chanchal Bhalla and others, the stand of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the dependency was wrongly assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. For the reasons mentioned above, it can not be said to be bad.
7. Finding no force in these two appeals, the same are dismissed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in support of his cross-examination argued that the learned Tribunal fell in error in deducting the gratia payment received by the claimants out of the compensation payable. The contention of the learned Counsel for the cross-objectors was that any benefit which accrued to the claimants on account of service condition could not be deducted from the compensation payable. It was further contended that no payment towards cremation expenses and consortium has been granted by the learned Tribunal, to which the claimants were entitled. I find force in this contention.
Consequently, the cross-examination filed by Smt. Ajit Kaur and others are allowed and it is held that in addition to the compensation already awarded, they would be entitled to another sum of Rs. 21,500/- i.e. Rs. 14,500/- wrongly deducted out of the compensation payable and another sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards consortium and cremation expenses. In addition to this, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest on this amount @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
9. Similarly, cross-examinations filed by Smt. Chanchal Bhalla are also accepted. In addition to the amount awarded as compensation, they are also held entitled to an other amount of Rs. 22,500/- i.e. Rs. 15,500/- wrongly deducted out of the compensation payable and Rs. 7,000/- as consortium and cremation expenses. In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to interest on this amount @ 7% per annum from the date of application till relization.