Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Khanna vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 3 January, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
FAO No.517 of 1991 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.517 of 1991
Date of decision 03.01.2012.
Vishal Khanna
...... Appellant.
versus
The State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents.
FAO No. 518 of 1991 Smt. Anita Khanna and others ...... Appellant.
versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents.
FAO No. 519 of 1991 Vishal Khanna and another ...... Appellants.
versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents.
FAO No. 520 of 1991 Smt.Shanti Devi Khanna and another FAO No.517 of 1991 2 ...... Appellants.
versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents.
FAO No. 2521 of 1994The State of Punjab and another ...... Appellants.
versus Vishal Khanna and others ...... Respondents.
FAO No. 2522 of 1994 The State of Punjab and others ...... Appellants.
versus Anita Khanna and others ...... Respondents.
FAO No. 2523 of 1994 The State of Punjab and another ...... Appellants.
versus Smt.Shanti Devi Khanna and others ...... Respondents.
FAO No. 2524 of 1994 The State of Punjab and another ...... Appellants.
FAO No.517 of 1991 3versus Vishal Khanna and others ...... Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for the claimants/appellants in FAOs No.517 to 520 of 1991 and for respondents in FAOs No.2521 to 2524 of 1994.
Mr. K.S.Sivia DAG, Punjab, for the appellants/State of Punjab in FAOs No.2521 to 2524 of 1994 and for respondents-State in FAOs No.517 to 520 of 1991. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for New India, Insurance Company.
K.C.PURI. J.
This judgment of mine will dispose of eight appeals FAO No.517 of 1991 titled as Vishal Khanna versus The State of Punjab and others, FAO No.518 of 1991 titled as Smt.Anita Khanna and others versus The State of Punjab and others, FAO No.519 of 1991 titled as Vishal Khanna and another versus The State of Punjab and others, FAO No.520 of 1991 titled as Smt.Smt.Shanti Devi and another versus The State of Punjab and others, preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and other appeals i.e. FAO No.2521 of 1994 titled as The State of Punjab and another versus Vishal Khanna and FAO No.517 of 1991 4 others, FAO No.2522 of 1994 The State of Punjab and others versus Anita Khanna and others , FAO No.2523 of 1994 titled as The State of Punjab and others versus Smt.Shanti Devi Khanna and others and FAO No.2524 of 1994 titled as The State of Punjab and others versus Vishal Khanna and others, preferred by the State questioning the aspect of negligence and quantum of compensation. Since all these appeals have arisen out of the one judgment dated 6.11.1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, these are, therefore taken up together for discussion and decision to avoid any repetition. For convenience facts are being taken from FAO No.517 of 1991.
2. The brief facts of the case are that four claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act i.e. MACT No.53 Smt.Shanti Devi Khanna vs. State of Punjab Claim Petition No.54 of Anita Khanna vs. State of Punjab, No.52 Vishal Khanna vs. State of Punjab. Petition No.56 Vishal Khanna vs. State of Punjab were preferred and all these five petitions, referred to above, were consolidated and decided vide judgment dated 6.11.1990 passed by Shri K.S.Garewal, Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar
3. The case of the claimants are that on 9.9.1988 at about 2.30/2.45p.m. Adarsh Kumar Khanna, his wife, Vishal petitioner his infant son, Shashi Kant his brother were travelling with him. Adarsh Kumar other brother of Ravi Kant Khanna, was following the said Car in his own FIAT Car bearing registration No. DBD 3595 along with his brother-in-law Rakesh Bhandari. When the Maruti Car reached near Boothgarh about three KM short of Morinda, a Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration FAO No.517 of 1991 5 No.PJG 2536 came from the opposite side. The said bus was being driven by Jagir Singh rashly and negligently. The driver of the said bus came on the wrong side of the road and hit the said bus into the Maruti Car and pushed the said car at some distance. As a result of impact, Adarsh, Shashi Kant and Kanchan died at the spot whereas Vishal received injuries. The car was badly damaged. The above said claim petitions were filed for claiming compensation on account of death of Adarsh, Shashi Kant and Kanchan and injuries to Vishal and damaged to car respectively.
4. Written statement was filed by respondent No.1 and 2 whereas respondent No.5 National Insurance Company filed separately written statement. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos 1 and 2 they have taken preliminary objections that claim petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. driver of car, involved in the accident has not been arrayed.
5. On merits, the factum of accident was admitted, however, it is pleaded that Jagir Singh was driving his bus with due care and caution at normal speed. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of car driver who was driving the same at a rash and negligent manner and lost control and hit the bus by coming on the wrong side. The driver of the bus had stopped the bus to avoid the accident. He blew the horn and applied brake and taking the bus stand on the extreme side and had taken the bus on its left side.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
FAO No.517 of 1991 6
1. Whether the accident in question resulting in injuries to Vishal Khanna, death of Kanchan Khanna, Shashi Kant Khanna, damage to car No.CHM-8341, death of Adarsh Khanna took place on 9.9.1988 at about 2.30/2.45PM near village Boothgarh on Ludhiana-Ropar Road due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PJG-2536 by respondent No.3? If so its effect ?
(2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants in all the five claim petitions are entitled to any compensation, If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents ? (3) Relief.
7. The parties had led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on both the issues in favour of the claimants and allowed the amount of compensation detailed as under :-
MACT petition No.52 Rs.10,000/- is awarded along with interest @ 12% per annum and with costs. MACT petition No.53 Rs.3,46lacs is awarded with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application and with costs. MACT petition No.54 Anita Khanna vs. State of Punjab Rs.5,14lacs along with interest. MACT petition No.55 titled as Khanna Rubbers (P) Ltd vs. State of Punjab was dismissed. MACT petition No.56 of 1986 Vishal Khanna vs. State of Punjab a sum of Rs.5,44 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum with costs were granted.
The costs assessed in above said four petitions was Rs.1000/- each.
So far as MACT No.55 of 1988 is concerned, the claim FAO No.517 of 1991 7 petition was dismissed and none of the parties have filed appeal against the said Award.
FAO Nos.517 to 520 of 1991 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation whereas FAO Nos.2521 to 2524 of 1994 have been preferred on the question of negligence and quantum of compensation.
8. So far as issue No.1 regarding negligence of Jagir Singh driver is concerned, the said issue has been decided against the driver and owner of the vehicles. Otherwise also, the finding on issue No.1 are well reasoned and there is no scope for interference in respect of finding on issue No.1 and consequently finding on issue No.1 stands affirmed. The learned State counsel has also not challenged the finding on issue No.1, during the course of arguments, and as such the finding on issue No.1 stands affirmed.
9. The main contest was in respect of quantum of compensation. The arguments advanced by the learned State counsel are that, Adarsh Kumar Khanna was aged 28 years, Kanchan Khanna was aged about 23 years and Shashi Kant Khanna was 30 years of age as per record. The multiplier applied in respect of death of Adarsh Kumar has been assessed as 18 whereas multiplier in respect of death of Kanchan has been assessed as
19. It is submitted that multiplier applicable is excessive in respect of both Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Kanchan Khanna.
10. The second contention of counsel for the State is that the income of Kanchan has been assessed as Rs.2,000/- per month in the year 1988. She was not working anywhere and as such the dependency of FAO No.517 of 1991 8 Rs.1000/- in respect of death of Kanchan is excessive.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the claimants is that the amount of income of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna has been assessed as Rs.5000/- each. The said assessment of income is on lower side. The income of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna deceased should have been assessed @ Rs.8500/- per month as per evidence on the file.
12. The second contention of learned counsel for the claimants is that dependency should have been assessed by deducting 1/3rd of the income of those two deceased. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. The dependency of Kanchan to the tune of Rs.1500/- cannot be said to be excessive but it is on lower side. So, prayer has been made for enhancement of the compensation by increasing the income of deceased. Adarsh Kumar Khanna, Shashi Kant Khanna and Kanchan and by taking against dependency of 2/3rd after deducting 1/3rd in respect of expenses incurred by the deceased.
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
14. The first aspect of the case is in respect of income of Adarsh Kumar Khanna, Shashi Kant Khanna and Kanchan.
15. In my view the assessment made by the Tribunal in respect of income of these three deceased does not call for any interference. The Tribunal has taken into account all the evidence including the returns of FAO No.517 of 1991 9 income tax in respect of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna. The income has to be taken into account at the time of death of these persons. The proved income as per Tribunal in respect of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna comes to Rs.5000/-per month and income of Kanchan has been assessed as Rs.2000/-. Counsel for the State could not assail these findings by giving any valid reason and the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of all the three deceased.
16. Now reverting to the factum of dependency is concerned, in the case of Kanchan, the dependency has been taken as Rs.1500/-. That amount cannot at all be excessive. A household lady working in the house from morning till night. Even if a petty servant is engaged in that case also the dependency of Rs.1500/- cannot be said to be excessive. So, the amount of Rs.1500/- in respect of death of Kanchan does not call for any interference.
17. So far as dependency in respect of death of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna is concerned that is on the lower side. Deduction to the extent of 50% in respect of maintenance of deceased is highly excessive. Normally dependency is calculated after taking into account the expenses to the extent of 1/3rd share and dependency in respect of death of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna is calculated at Rs.3,333/- after deducting 1/3rd of the amount in respect of maintenance of both these deceased out of the income of Rs.5000/- per month. The age of Adarsh Kumar Khanna was 28 years whereas age of Shashi Kant Khanna was 30 years as per record. So, in view of authority Smt. Sarla Verma and FAO No.517 of 1991 10 others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 77, the multiplier applicable in respect of death of Adarsh Kumar Khanna and Shashi Kant Khanna should be 17. In this manner the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.6,79,932/- i.e. Rs.3333x12x17. So, the amount of compensation stands enhanced to that extent. The claimants of these claim petitions are held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum as awarded by the trial Court.
18. So far as the age of Kanchan was 23 years and multiplier applied in respect of Kanchan was 19 is concerned, according to the authority Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case (supra) the multiplier applicable is 18. So, the claimants in respect of death of Kanchan are held entitled to claim Rs.3,24,000 (Rs.1500x12x18) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, in case the amount has already been paid in that case it would be very difficult for the claimants to refund the amount. So, in case the amount of compensation has already been paid to the legal heirs of Kanchan deceased, in that case, the same would not be recovered from the claimants/legal heirs of Kanchan. Therefore, the State appeal qua legal heirs of legal heirs of Kanchan deceased stands accepted in the manner indicated above and the remaining State appeals stand dismissed.
19. So far as the amount of compensation in respect of injury to Vishal are concerned, no argument has been addressed by counsel for both the parties and as such the compensation awarded in respect of injury to Vishal does not call for any interference and the same stands affirmed. FAO No.517 of 1991 11
20. So, in these circumstances, the above said eight appeals stand disposed of in the terms mentioned above.
21. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE January 3rd , 2012 sv