Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vidya Devi Widow And Anr. vs Madan Singh And Ors. on 13 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: I(1994)ACC257, 1994ACJ940, (1994)106PLR138
JUDGMENT A.P. Chowdhri, J.
1. As unusual accident took place on January 14, 1984. Bus No. PUK-9695, which was being driven by Madan Singh respondent No. 1, came from the side of Muktsar. When it reached near railway station, Kotkapura the bus knocked down one motor-cyclist, Jagir Singh by name. Thereafter it turned towards some hand-carts (Rehris) which were parked nearby by the hawkers, injuring Hans Raj and Des Raj. Des Raj later on died as a result of the accident. The bus then hit one wooden Khokha belonging to Khushi Ram, whose two sons Parveen Kumar and Sanjay Kumar who were selling eggs etc. on Rehri were also injured. One Madan Lal, who was an employee of the Market Committee and who was standing there, was also knocked down and he died at the spot.
2. Several claim petitions were made on account of two deaths and several injured persons. The present appeals are with regard to the death of Madan Lal and injuries of Jagir Singh. These are FAO Nos 179 and 439 both of 1985.
3. The claimants in FAO No. 179 of 1985 were Vidya Devi, mother and Pawan Kumar, brother of the deceased-Madan Lal. Madan Lal was 20. He was a permanent employee working as cattle scarer getting about Rs. 500/- per month, besides uniform allowance, washing allowance etc. The Claims Tribunal took Rs. 100/- per month as the dependency of the mother and applying a multiplier of 20, awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- to the mother. It was further held that Pawan Kumar was not shown to be minor or dependent on the deceased and, therefore, his claim was negatived. With regard to Jagir Singh, appellant in FAO No. 439 of 1985, it was held that even though the doctor concerned had been examined, Jagir Singh himself failed to appear as a witness and his petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Claims Tribunal, the appellants have preferred these appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. On behalf of the claimants in FAO No. 179 of 1985 relating to Smt. Vidya Devi, it has been contended by Mr. Ravinder Chopra that the deceased was proved to be earning Rs. 500/- per month. Generally l/3rd is deducted for the maintenance of the person himself and the dependency is calculated to the extent of 2/3rd. The dependency in this case rounded to the nearest figure comes to Rs. 340/- per month are, therefore, compensation, according to Mr. Chopra, should be calculated on that basis.
5. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it was contended that Smt. Vidya Devi herself admitted that her son was giving her every month amounts varying from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 150/-. Sometimes he used to give her Rs. 100/- in a month. It was on the basis of this admission that the learned Claims Tribunal took the dependency at Rs. 100/- per month. It was also pointed out by Mr. L.M. Suri, learned counsel for the Insurance-Company, that the case relates to an accident which took place in 1984 and the petitions were filed in February 1984. If interest is allowed, as is usually done, then the compensation would swell into a substantial amount and this aspect of the case must be borne in mind.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the admission made by Smt. Vidya Devi as also the aspect of interest, I am of the view that just and fair compensation to which Smt. Vidya Devi, appellant, is entitled is Rs. 50,000/-. She is also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the unpaid amount from date of the claim petition till date of payment.
7. With regard to Jagir Singh, I have seen the injuries suffered by him. The Claims Tribunal clearly fell in error in dismissing his claim petition simply on the ground that he had failed to appear as his own witness. The evidence of doctor was examined as AW-4 shows that Jagir Singh suffered two injuries. The medical evidence further shows that Jagir Singh cannot lift somewhat heavy weight from his left hand. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that just and fair compensation in his case should be fixed at Rs. 15,000/-. This would carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from date of claim application till date of payment.
8. Both the appeals are allowed to the extent and interms indicated above.