Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Singh And Anr. vs Harbans Kaur And Ors. on 26 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)116PLR738
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the order dated 29.11.1984 of the Learned Single Judge vide which two appeals, one filed by the Claimants and the other by the New India Insurance Company were disposed of inter-alia holding that since the truck in question was transferred to the appellants Nasib Singh and Sukhdev Singh by the insured Satinder Kumar Malhotra upon whom no liability was fastened, consequently no claim can be sustained against the insurer and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to reimburse or pay compensation to the claimants. The compensation was enhanced by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 36,000/- to 60000/- holding the appellants liable to make the payment to the claimants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in enhancing the compensation by adopting a multiplier of 16 which cannot be done in the case in hand as the deceased was 42 years of age and left 17 acres of land for the claimants and the enhancement of the dependency to Rs. 300/also cannot be sustained.
3. We find no merit in the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants. There is no dispute that the deceased was having 17 acres of land, rather it has been conceded at the Bar that the deceased was having 17 acres of agricultural land and 42 years old at the time! of the accident. It is also not disputed that the deceased was employing some labour to complete the cultivation under his supervision.
4. The claimants in their claim petition averred that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 600/- and in the statement on oath, it was categorically stated by the widow that yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 18,000/-.
5. There is no word worth the name by way of evidence on record contradicting the statement made on oath by the widow of the deceased. There is no gain-saying that in this country of ours illiteracy prevails and the dependency on the Counsel is more who half-heartedly discharge their obligations even without verifying the facts. They make averments in respect of the income even without bringing the facts to the notice of the party. Apparently, it is one of those cases. It cannot be imagined that a person owning 17 acres of land would earn an income of Rs. 3600/- per annum and his entire family would survive especially when concededly under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the ceiling of 30 Standard acres has been prescribed on the agricultural land. Assuming as expected in the case of an illiterate claimant that rule of thumb has to be adopted and some assumptions have to be made, we are of the view that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1000/- per acre annually, thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be in either way un-expected or excessive income. Taking at the worst, even the income given in the claim petition taken to be at Rs. 600/- per month, the dependency comes to Rs. 7200/- per annum. On the basis of multiplier as suggested by the Counsel for the appellants and adopted by the Claim Tribunal while awarding compensation, the compensation comes to Rs. 86,400/- while the learned Single Judge awarded Rs. 60,000/- only. In our considered view, the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is just compensation. Rather it is on a lower side for the life of a person of 42 years and for the illiterate widow and children who are to survive for the rest of their lives especially when the widow was only 30 years of age at the time of death of the deceased.
6. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find no ground to interfere in the matter in so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants also argued that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Without going into this question, as the Counsel for the Insurance Company has candidly conceded that the compensation of Rs. 36,000/already paid to the appellants, shall not be recovered from the appellants, we are of the view that this is not a case for interference with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Even learned Counsel for the appellants has failed to show now in the absence of the insured Satinder Kumar Malhotra, who has not been impleaded as a party, the Insurance Company can be held liable to reimburse the compensation to the claimants.
8. In view of the observations made above and the fair concession granted by counsel for the Insurance Company, we find no merits in these two appeals and the same are dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Insurance Company would not recover the compensation already paid to the claimants. There will be no order as to costs.