Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basanti And Ors. vs Ranjana Batra And Ors. on 1 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)ACC76, 2008ACJ154
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two first appeals being F.A.O. No. 948 of 2002 and F.A.O. No. 951 of 2002, as both the appeals have been filed by the claimants arising out of the award dated July 25, 2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the ribunal).
2. The appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation.
3. The facts which emerge from the record show that on October, 1998, an accident took place between the tractor-trolley and a truck No. UP-07-9377. The truck in question was being driven by Subhash Chander. In the aforesaid accident four persons died namely, Prithi Singh, Inder Pal, Shamsher Singh and Partap Singh. The dependents of the aforesaid deceased persons filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. It was identically pleaded by the claimants that the driver Subhash Chander, was rash and negligent in his driving and thereby had caused the accident in question resulting in the death of Prithvi Singh, Inder Pal, Shamsher Singh and Partap Singh. The claimants further claimed that Prithi Singh, at the time of his death was 30-years of age and was working as an agricultural labourer and was also engaged in the sale and purchase of fodder. Consequently, the claimants claimed that his income was Rs. 5,000 per month. In the case of Inder Pal, his dependents also claimed that at the time of his death, Inder Pal was 28 years of age and was engaged in the cultivation of land. It was also claimed that the aforesaid Inder Pal, at the time of his death, was additionally engaged in sale and purchase of fodder. His dependents claimed that his monthly income was Rs. 6,000.
4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available on record found that Subhash Chander, driver of the truck in question was indeed rash and negligent in his driving and had caused the accident in question because of the aforesaid fact. Consequently, the claimants were held entitled to claim compensation. The learned Tribunal further assessed the income of both Prithi Singh and Inder Pal at Rs. 2,000 per month. The plea taken by the claimants that both the aforesaid persons were engaged in sale and purchase of fodder was rejected. The dependency in each case was assessed at 2/3rd. In the case of Prithi Singh a multiplier of 17 was applied and in the case of Inder Pal, a multiplier of 18 was applied. Consequently, the compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,82,000 in the case of Prithi Singh, which included the loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In the case of Inder Pal, the compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,98,000 inclusive of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The owner, driver and the Insurance Company were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.
5. As noticed above, the claimants have filed the present two appeals claiming further enhancement of compensation.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
7. Mr. L.N. Verma, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in the two appeals has argued that the income of the deceased Prithi Singh and Inder Pal has been assessed much on the lower side. It has been maintained by the learned Counsel that even if the aforesaid deceased persons were taken to be agricultural labourer still the income could not be assessed less than Rs. 3,000. Consequently, it has been argued that the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is inadequate.
8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel, I find merit in the same. Even if it is a taken, as has been held by the Tribunal, that the deceased Prithi Singh and Inder Pal were not engaged in cultivation of the land. In these circumstances, even if the aforesaid persons are to be treated as agricultural labourer, still their wages cannot be assessed less than Rs. 100 per day i.e., Rs. 3,000 permonth. Dependency in the case of the deceased would come to Rs. 2,000 per month. A multiplier of 17 has been applied in the case of Prithi Singh by the Tribunal and a multiplier of 18 has been applied in the case of Inder Pal. Maintaining the aforesaid multiplier, the compensation in the case of Prithi Singh would come to Rs. 4,08,000 whereas it would be Rs. 4,32,000 in the case of Inder Pal. Awarding an amount of Rs. 12,000 for loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the total compensation payable in the case of Prithi Singh would come to Rs. 4,20,000. A similar amount of Rs. 13,000 is added as compensation for loss of consortium and for funeral expenses and the total compensation in the case of Inder Pal comes to Rs. 4,45,000. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid jointly and severally by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company, along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
9. The present appeals are thus allowed with the aforesaid modification in the award of the Tribunal.