Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bansi Ram And Another vs Amarjit Singh And Another on 5 April, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990
Date of Decision : April 05, 2010
Bansi Ram and another
....Appellants
Versus
Amarjit Singh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. K.L. Kohli, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The present appeal had been filed by the claimants against the award dated 22.8.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. Vide impugned award, the claimants were granted an amount of Rs.57,600/- as compensation on account of death of their son Satish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. In this appeal, the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation amount.
The accident in question had taken place on 21.3.1988 at about 3.20 P.M. in front of Dev Samaj School, Sector 21, Chandigarh. At that time, Satish Kumar, since deceased, and Jasvinder Singh, who F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990 -2- used to work as a helper at M/s Karan Motors, were returning on a motorcycle from the petrol pump of Sector 21, Chandigarh. When they reached in front of the school, a three wheeler, bearing registration No.CHV-433, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Amarjit Singh-respondent came from the opposite side and struck with the motorcycle. As a result, both Satish Kumar and Jasvinder Singh received injuries and while being removed to the hospital, Satish Kumar breathed his last.
According to the claimants, their deceased son Satish Kumar was aged about 21 years and earning Rs.1,000/- per month by working as a mechanic with M/s Karan Motors, Sector 21, Chandigarh. He also used to distribute newspapers during his spare time. They were dependent upon their deceased son, who was the sole bread earner for the family. Accordingly, the claimants filed a petition and prayed for being awarded an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation.
While contesting the claim petition, Amarjit Singh, owner and driver of the offending three-wheeler, denied rashness and negligent on his part. He stated that it was deceased himself who was driving the motorcycle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the accident had taken place. Therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the claimants. He also stated that the three-wheeler owned by him stood insured with National Insurance Company and in case he was held liable to pay the F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990 -3- amount of compensation, the insurer be asked to indemnify him. The Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that Amarjit Singh was not possessing a valid driving license. Moreover, the liability of the Company was limited upto Rs.50,000/- only.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, learned Tribunal held that it was Amarjit Singh- respondent who was responsible for causing the accident. Therefore, the claimants were entitled to receive an amount of Rs.57,600/- as compensation. However, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the Insurance Company was made liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the claimants and the remaining amount was to be paid by Amarjit Singh, owner and driver of the offending three-wheeler. The claimants were also awarded interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.
According to the claimants, the deceased used to work as a mechanic with M/s Karan Motors. AW3 Manjit Singh, who was owner of M/s Karan Motors deposed that at the time of the accident, deceased Satish Kumar was working as a mechanic at his workshop since November, 1986 and was paid Rs.500/- per month. In January, 1988 his salary was increased to Rs.650/- per month. He brought the original documents regarding the training of the deceased.
AW1 Bansi Ram-claimant deposed that his deceased son was 21 years of age at the time of his death and had been working as a F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990 -4- mechanic with M/s Karan Motors. He also used to sell newspapers in his spare time. He was giving an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to his parents.
AW2 Jasvinder Singh testified before the Tribunal about the manner in which the accident had taken place. In his cross- examination, he stated that he did not know as to what was the pay of deceased Satish Kumar.
In view of the above evidence, it stands established that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.650/- per month, which he was getting by working as a mechanic with M/s Karan Motors. Apart from the statement of AW1 Bansi Ram, there is no other evidence on the file that the deceased was also earning some income by distributing newspapers. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the self serving statement of AW1 Bansi Ram about the deceased earning some income by selling newspapers during his spare time. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.650/- per month only at the time of his death.
Out of the amount of Rs.650/- per month, learned Tribunal was justified in deducting an amount of Rs.250/-, which the deceased might be spending upon himself, and in calculating the dependency as Rs.400/- per month or Rs.4,800/- per annum.
The deceased was about 21 years of age at the time of his F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990 -5- death. As he was unmarried, learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 12 only so as to grant an amount of Rs.57,600/- as compensation to his parents, i.e. the claimants. The multiplier of 12 is on the lower side. Even as per the Second Schedule to the Act which can be used as a guideline while deciding the appropriate multiplier, 17 is the suitable multiplier to be applied where the victim is above 20 years but less than 25 years of age. Taking into consideration the aforementioned fact, the Court is of the view that the multiplier of 17 has to be applied in the present case so as to hold the claimants entitled to receive an amount of Rs.81,600/- as compensation, instead of Rs.57,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, an amount of Rs.2,000/- can also be granted to the claimants on account of the expenses incurred by them on the funeral of their deceased son. Resultantly, the compensation amount stands enhanced from Rs.57,600/- to Rs.83,600/-.
According to the Tribunal, the offending vehicle stood insured vide policy Ex.R4. Though the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation yet it was subject to the conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R4. Accordingly, out of the amount awarded, the Insurance Company was made liable to pay Rs.50,000/- while the remaining amount was made payable by owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and others, 2001 ACJ 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990 -6- the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court in directing the Insurance Company to pay whole of the awarded amount to the claimants on the basis of the contractual obligation contained in clauses relating to the liability of the third parties and avoidance clause. Once the Insurance Company paid the awarded amount to the claimants, it was entitled to recover from the insured the excess amount paid in execution and discharge of the award of the Tribunal. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-
"In the facts and circumstances of this case we find that despite holding the liability under the policy limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not unjustified in directing the appellant company to pay the whole of the awarded amount to the claimants on the basis of the contractual obligations contained in clauses relating to the liability of the third parties and avoidance clause. However, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in rejecting the right of the appellant company to recover from the insured the excess amount paid in execution and discharge of the award of the Tribunal."
In view of the above, the appeal is accepted by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.57,600/- to Rs.83,600/-. The F.A.O. No. 862 of 1990 -7- Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the entire amount to the claimants. Upon making such payment, the Insurance Company can recover the excess amount from the insured by executing this award against the insured to the extent of such excess as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @12% per annum on the amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the claim petition till realisation of the same alongwith costs as imposed by the Tribunal. Besides, they shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation of the said amount.
( T.P.S. MANN )
April 05, 2010 JUDGE
satish