Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kiran Wati And Ors. vs Hari Singh And Ors. on 9 August, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992ACJ68
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.9.1989 given by Mr. S.S. Kanwal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dismissing the claim petition filed by Kiran Wati and her two minor children, on the ground of limitation. At this stage, it may be mentioned that vide the impugned judgment, four claim petitions were decided together arising out of the same accident and compensation was awarded to the claimants in the other three petitions.
2. The accident took place on December 11, 1985 between the Matador and truck. Ranbir Singh, deceased, was one of the occupants of the Matador who died on account of the accident. The present appellants, legal heirs and dependants of Ranbir Singh filed the claim petition on September 21, 1987 claiming a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation. The claim petition was contested, inter alia, on the ground of limitation and negligence. It is not necessary to reproduce the issues framed in the cases. Suffice it to say that the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PJQ 6139 which was driven by Hari Singh, respondent. Truck was owned by Sukhdev Singh and was insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Mr. Arun Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants, has argued that the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the question of limitation against the claimants. Kiran Wati, claimant being an illiterate woman could not have access to the Tribunal. The two minor children of Kiran Wati also were unable to approach the court. As far as the minor children are concerned, the matter is covered by decision of this Court in Sukh Rani v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 1989 ACJ 312 (P&H), wherein it was held that minors could approach the court after their legal disability was removed, i.e., after they had become major. This decision was based on the earlier decision of this Court in Chawli Devi v. Union of India 1973 ACJ 519 (P&H). The Tribunal had committed an error in deciding the question of limitation, as far as the minor claimants are concerned, as they were not to suffer on account of omission or inaction on the part of their guardian in this respect. The delay in approaching the Tribunal on behalf of the minor is condoned.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also pressed the appeal qua Kiran Wati appellant that she being an illiterate woman could not approach the court in time. He has also referred to certain other circumstances brought from evidence that her father-in-law is a blind person and her brother had died sometime immediately after the accident. In my view, these facts cannot be taken into consideration while considering the question of condoning the delay. Firstly, they were not pleaded and evidence produced cannot be looked into. Secondly, full particulars are not given as to when the death of the brother took place and on that account Kiran Wati, appellant was prevented from approaching the Tribunal. Even if her father-in-law was stated to be blind, that cannot per se be a ground to hold that Kiran Wati was prevented to approach the Tribunal in time, furthermore, merely on the ground that Kiran Wati is an illiterate woman is not enough to condone the delay of one year and 6 months in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in declining to condone the delay in case of Kiran Wati, appellant.
5. The further question for consideration is as to how much compensation the two minor children would be entitled. PW 1 Kiran Wati deposed her age as well as the age of the two minors. She gave her age as 25 years and age of children Satish Kumar and Sumir Singh, 8 and 5 years respectively. She also gave the age of deceased Ranbir Singh, at the time of death, as 29/30 years. The fact that Ranbir Singh had died on account of accident is not disputed in this appeal. Kiran Wati has further stated Ranbir Singh was earning Rs. 2,500/-. He was working as an electric contractor. She gave the name of the firm with whom or under whom the deceased was working, namely, M/s. Nagpal & Company of Okhla. However, no person from that firm was produced to support her case. One neighbour PW 3 Devia was also produced. His evidence qua income of the deceased can hardly be accepted. Some element of exaggeration on the part of Kiran Wati in deposing about the income of the deceased cannot be ruled out. Taking into consideration that the deceased was working as an electric contractor which required skilled work, his income at Rs. 1,500/- per mensem can reasonably be fixed. Leaving 1/3rd for his own expenses, dependency of Kiran Wati and two minor children, would be at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The next question for consideration is what should be the multiplier. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to some of the decisions on the subject where multiplier of more than 20 was applied. Rajasthan High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidya Devi 1988 ACJ 558 (Rajasthan), where the deceased who was aged about 42 years, applied multiplier of 23. In N.D.M.C. v. Kamlesh Kumari 1991 ACJ 970 (Delhi), the deceased was aged about 30/33 years and multiplier of 25 was applied. In Elizebeth Mathew v. Vasdev 1990 ACJ 461 (Delhi), the deceased was 30 years and multiplier of 28 was applied. As already stated above, in the present case, the deceased was aged 29/ 30 years and apart from two minor children aged at 5 years and 8 years, he left behind a widow aged 25 years and father is also alive. Multiplier of 25 in this case is considered just and proper. Applying the same, dependency of the three appellants at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, it would come to Rs. 3,00,000/- (1,000/-x 12x25). Since Kiran Wati's claim is being declined on the ground of limitation, the other two minor appellants Satish Kumar and Sumir Singh are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed with costs. The claim of Kiran Wati stands dismissed whereas Satish Kumar and Sumir Singh, minors are allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/-each with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing of claim application, i.e., September 21, 1987 till realisation. The amount is awarded against the three respondents Hari Singh, driver, Sukdev Singh, owner and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the truck was insured. They would be liable to pay the amount jointly and severally. On realisation 50 per cent of the amount would be paid to the claimant minors through their mother Kiran Wati and the remaining amount will be deposited in a fixed deposit with one of the nationalised banks to be renewed from time to time to earn maximum interest and would be paid to the claimants on attaining majority or otherwise under orders of the guardian court.