Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Pati And Another vs Jitender Kumar And Ors on 29 July, 2013
F.A. O. No. 3925 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 3925 of 2012
Date of decision:-29.07.2013
Chander Pati and another
....... Appellants
Versus
Jitender Kumar and ors.
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate
for respondent. No.3.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Fast Track Court), Rohtak (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.03.2012 in a sum of Rs.1,07,600/- as compensation. Learned Tribunal has assessed compensation on the death of Sunil Kumar in the road side accident that occurred on 09.11.2010 at Rs.2,15,200/- but holding that the deceased was 50% responsible for the accident, allowed a sum of Rs.1,07,600/- as compensation.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.07.31 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 3925 of 2012 -2-
The claim petition had been brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on the death of Sunil Kumar in the aforesaid accident. Sunil Kumar, the deceased has been claimed to be a student of Engineering doing B.Tech. Course. He was said to be doing part time job and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is claimed to have been spent on last rites and transportation of dead body etc. The aforesaid averments of the claimants, the parents of the deceased have been denied by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not been justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3800/- per month. He has further submitted that after holding under issue no.1 that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of car No.HR-10-J-4751 by respondent no.2, learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the deceased to be himself negligent and contributing his negligence to the cause of the accident in the ratio of 50:50.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3800/- per month because he was not earning anything. He has further submitted that the deceased was having Kumar Dinesh 2013.07.31 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 3925 of 2012 -3- two persons on the pillion of the motorcycle and it was a case of triple riding and, therefore, it has been held to be a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
The deceased had been a B.Tech. student. He had a bright future. His income, taken at Rs.3800/- per month, is on a lower side. Even if it is taken at this amount, future prospects should have been taken into consideration and some addition should have been made to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects. Therefore, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month, I add 50% thereto in the name of future prospects and take the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. Half of this amount is the dependency of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. So the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.3000/- per month and when multiplied with 12, it comes to Rs.36,000/-.
Coming to the multiplier, it has to be seen that the mother is of the age of 55 years and for a person, who was of the age of 55 years, the multiplier suggested by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 is of 11. Therefore, the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Sunil Kumar comes to Rs.3,96,000 to which a sum of Rs.10,000/- is Kumar Dinesh 2013.07.31 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 3925 of 2012 -4- added under the conventional heads and I find a total sum of Rs.4,06,000/- to be the compensation payable to the claimants.
Coming to the negligence aspect of the case, it has been categorically held by learned Tribunal that the accident has been on account of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent no.2. It is true that the deceased was indulging in triple riding. However, it cannot be said on the record of this case that triple riding contributed to the cause of the accident in any manner. So, learned Tribunal was unjustified in making any deduction in the name of contributory negligence.
Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,07,600/- to Rs.4,06,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants-appellants by the respondents with simple interest and in the proportion as settled by the Tribunal in the award.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 29.07.2013 JUDGE dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.07.31 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh