Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhu Singh And Anr. vs Uday Singh And Ors. on 29 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008ACJ1608, (2007)4PLR507
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.
1. This appeal arises out of award dated 3.9.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the claim petition preferred by the claimants/appellants has been dismissed.
2. The factual background as emerges from the record of the case is that one Bijender alias Vijay Pal met with accident at Bus Stand at Village Manesar with Maruti Van bearing No. DID-2632. It is alleged in the petition that the offending vehicle was driven by Udai Singh in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle was in a high speed and without blowing any horn, hit the victim who was standing on his own side. The driver took away the victim in the said Maruti Van on the pretext of getting him treated. In view of the fact that there was no space in the Vehicle, no other person boarded the vehicle. It was further alleged that the body of the deceased was recovered somewhere near Dharuhara on December, 6/7, 1985 i.e. four days after the accident. An F.I.R. was lodged by Lakhu Singh, father of the deceased wherein the Registration number of the van was also mentioned. The police of P.S. Sadar Gurgaon investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet in the competent court. At the time of passing of the impugned award, the accused was facing trial. On the basis of the evidence led, the Tribunal returned a finding that the claimants/appellants have failed to establish the accident. Though the finding on issue No. 1 was against the appellants/claimants, however, the Tribunal proceeded to decide other issue and also determined the compensation payable to the claimants. According to the Tribunal, the dependency of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 300/- per month and keeping in view the age of the deceased as 17 years and those of the parents as 45 and 40 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation of Rs. 57,600/- (Rs. 300 x 12 x 16). While deciding issue No. 6, the Tribunal has held that the owner of the vehicle, namely, S.C. Jain has sold the vehicle and thus, the Insurance Company has no liability, in view of the breach of contract of the insurance. As a result, the claim petition came to the dismissed vide the impugned award.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed glaring illegality in dismissing the claim petition. This opinion is based on following circumstances:
(1) While considering the issue No. 1, the Tribunal has noticed the evidence of PW4-Munni who deposed that he used to sell Pakoras on Rehri at the Bus Stand, Manesar at the time of accident and stated that the Maruti Van bearing DID 2632 came from Gurgaon side at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit Vijay Pal. He further stated that the driver of the vehicle took away Vijay Pal in an injured condition for treatment in the Hospital. The other witness of the occurrence is the father of the deceased, Lakhu Singh who stated that he and the deceased were standing together at the Manesar Bus Stand when the occurrence took place. He has also given the version of the occurrence and categorically stated that the Maruti Van hit the deceased. The Tribunal has appreciated the evidence as if it was holding a criminal trial and the claimants were required to establish the occurrence beyond any shadow of doubt. It is now settled position of law that while considering a claim petition, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry and to not act as a criminal court so as to find whether the claimants have established the occurrence beyond any shadow of doubt. In the enquiry, if there is prima facie evidence of the occurrence, there is no reason to disbelieve such an evidence. The statements of Lakhu Singh and PW4-Munni coupled with the facts of registration of FIR and trial of the accused in a criminal court, are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accident has taken place. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are totally erroneous and not sustainable in law. The evidence clearly establishes that the driver of the Maruti Van No. DID-2632 caused the accident by hitting the deceased Vijay Pal. The findings on issue No. 1 are accordingly set aside and reversed. It is thus concluded that Maruti Van above mentioned hit the deceased Vijay Pal while driving in a rash and negligent manner.
4. In so far as the question of income is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 450/-. There is evidence on record that the deceased was selling milk at the rate of Rs. 4/- per kg and used to sell 15-17 kgs. milk per day. The daily income was between Rs. 60/- to 70/-. Apart from above, it has also come in evidence that he was an agriculturist, though, this evidence is not too strong to be believed. In any case, per day income of the deceased is stated to be between Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/-. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 450/- per month, without any valid basis. Even if the income of the deceased as alleged is exaggeration, at least, he must be earning not less than 50% of the amount which is stated to be the income of the deceased. There is no evidence in rebuttal about the income of the deceased. It has also come in evidence that after the death of deceased, the appellants had employed one Om Parkash, servant at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. At least this amount is the yardstick for assessing the income of the deceased. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the gross income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 600/- per month and if the dependency is to be calculated after excluding 1/3rd income of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 400/- per month. Therefore, the dependency of the deceased is determined at Rs. 400/- per month. In so far as the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is concerned, the deceased was unmarried and the multiplier applied is 15 which is not required to be in-terfered. Therefore, the compensation amount to be calculated comes to Rs. 76,800/-. The Tribunal has also held that the Insurance Company has no liability as the registered owner S.C. Jain has sold die vehicle to one Rajinder Parshad Goel. It is not in dispute mat S.C. Jain was title registered owner and the contract of the Insurance with S.C. Jain was operational at the time of accident. The vehicle was never transferred in the name of the so-called successor owner. In these circumstances, die registered owner cannot escape his liability and consequently the Insurance Company also cannot avoid its liability under the contract of Insurance.
5. For the above reasons, impugned award dated 3.9.1987 is hereby set aside and the claim petition is allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 76,800/- to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the amount is disbursed.