Sh. Shamsher C. Lall vs Romi Malhotra And Others on 10 January, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sh. Shamsher C. Lall vs Romi Malhotra And Others on 10 January, 2011

Bench: K. Kannan

FAO No. 32 of 1987                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                      FAO No. 32 of 1987
                                      Date of decision January 10, 2011
Sh. Shamsher C. Lall

                                                         .......   Appellant
                               Versus

Romi Malhotra and others

                                                         ........Respondents

CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN


Present:-          Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate
                   for the appellant.

                   None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                   Mr. R. K. Bashamboo , Advocate
                   for the respondents.

                         ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The appeal is by the claimant who was a son of the deceased who was alleged to have died in a motor accident. The contention of the claimant was that on 4.5.1984 the deceased who was aged 75 years went to the market and she was struck by a scooter. The case had been however, closed on a statement recorded by the police that the woman was trying to cross the road without minding the traffic and on seeing a scooter she got confused, went back and fell down on the road and she died. The manner in which the accident was reported to have taken place to cause the death appears to be truly a magic. A person does not die by falling on the road or by looking at the scooter. I would find that the death was on account of the fact that the dashing of the scooter on the lady and her falling to ground at a high velocity. Post mortem report FAO No. 32 of 1987 2 revealed fracture of the skull, fracture of upper jaw and breaking of many teeth. All this cannot happen by a person falling on the road without any impact of a heavy object proceeding at some velocity. The Tribunal referred to a statement alleged to have been given by the deceased that the deceased got confused on seeing the scooter and stepped forward and backward and received injuries. I do not have benefit of the copy of the statement except the manner in which it has been recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment. A person that comes forward and backward and falling on the road to receive fractures and meet with death are such unnatural narrations that it is indeed surprising that Tribunal must have found it a credible version to accept. I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold the driver of the scooter as responsible for the accident and consequently the Insurance Company.

2. The evidence was that she was earning Rs.1,000/- per month, I would understand that to be contribution of a house holder to the family and take the financial loss to the son at Rs.5,00/- per month and would take yearly loss at Rs.6,000/- and adopt a multiplier of 5 to take the extent of dependency at Rs.30,000/- and would make a further addition of Rs.10,000/- towards conventional heads of claim for loss of estate and funeral expenses. This amount shall also attract interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The award is under the circumstances set aside and the appeal is allowed. The liability shall be on the Insurance Company of the vehicle.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE Jaunary 10, 2011 archana

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court