Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sahbo Widow Of Jaibir And Others vs Balwan Singh Driver Of Bus No. Hnb-2749 on 1 December, 2010
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K.Kannan
F.A.O.NO. 3670 OF 1999 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.NO. 3670 OF 1999
Date of decision: 1st December, 2010
Smt. Sahbo widow of Jaibir and others
.......Appellants
Versus
Balwan Singh driver of Bus No. HNB-2749, Bhiwani Depot(driver of
Bus No.HNB-2749) and others
........Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr.Anil Ghangas,Advocate for
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG,Haryana,
for the State of Haryana.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes/No
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded for death of the first claimant's husband in a motor accident. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when the deceased was boarding the bus and the driver had started it without waiting for the whistle of the conductor. The driver and the conductor were denying accident and said no such accident took place. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the driver and the conductor but at the same time held F.A.O.NO. 3670 OF 1999 2 that the deceased himself had contributed to the accident and made an abatement of claim to the extent of 50%.
2. Learned counsel argued that if there had been an admission of the involvement of the vehicle and the driver or the conductor were pleading for a case of contributory negligence, the Court could have come to such a conclusion. On the contrary, if the Tribunal rejected the defence that the vehicle had not been involved at all, then it could not have attributed contributory negligence to the deceased. I uphold the contention and find that there could have been no midway to a contention where one party was saying that the accident took place by the negligence of the respondent and the other party was denying the accident itself. If the accident has found to be true, it would only mean that the Tribunal was rejecting the defence and accepting the appellant's contention. The conductor was specifically denying suggestion put to him that the accident took place when the deceased who was travelling in the bus, got down at the bus stop and was again getting into the bus and the driver had started without waiting for the whistle from the conductor to ensure that all the passengers had fully got into the vehicle. I vacate the finding of contributory negligence and find that the claimants have established the case of negligent driving of the respondents bus.
3. Even on the issue of quantum, the Tribunal did not provide for prospect of increase in salary for a person who was a Revenue Patwari. He was 35 years and I would adopt a formula given in the F.A.O.NO. 3670 OF 1999 3 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 and tabulate the compensation payable in the following manner:-
FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 35 years Occupation Revenue Patwari Claimants Widow, minor and mother Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount(Rs) Amount(Rs) 1 Income 2804 2804 Add, % Increase 50%= 4206 2 30% / 50% Deduction ½, 1/3, ¼, 1/3rd 1//5 1/3rd 3
4 Multiplicand 1870 2804 x 12 = 33,648 5 Multiplier 12 16 6 Loss of dependence 5,38,368 7 Medical expenses --- -----
Loss of consortium ---
for wife and love and
8 affection for child 5000 + 2500
9 Loss to estate --- 5000
10 Funeral Expenses --- 2500
Total 1,34,640 5,53,368
4. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment.
5. The appeal is allowed as above.
[K.KANNAN] JUDGE 1st December, 2010 Shivani Kaushik