Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmila And Others vs Rakesh Kumar And Another on 24 July, 2013
FAO No. 587 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) FAO No. 587 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
Parmila and others .... Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Kumar and another .... Respondents
(2) FAO No. 826 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Balkar Singh and others .... Respondents
(3) FAO No. 827 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Angoori Devi and others .... Respondents
(4) FAO No. 828 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Om Wati and others .... Respondents
(5) FAO No. 829 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chand Kali and others .... Respondents
(6) FAO No. 830 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
Sanjay
2013.08.22 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO No. 587 of 2008 2
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Usha Devi and others .... Respondents
(7) FAO No. 831 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Parmila and others .... Respondents
(8) FAO No. 2576 of 2009.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Sukhinder Singh & another .... Respondents
(9) FAO No. 2577 of 2009.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Ram Sharan & others .... Respondents
(10) FAO No. 2656 of 2009.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Versus
Versha Rani and others .... Respondents
(11) FAO No. 3108 of 2009.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
Sukhinder Singh .... Appellant
Versus
Rakesh and another .... Respondents
Sanjay
2013.08.22 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO No. 587 of 2008 3
(12) FAO No. 4645 of 2009.
Date of Decision: 24.7.2013.
Ram Saran and another .... Appellants
Versus
Rajinder Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate,
for the appellant in FAO No 587 of 2008 & FAO No.3108 of 2009.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the insurance company-appellant in FAO No.826-831 of 2008 & 2576-77 & 2656 of 2009.
Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.4645 of 2009.
Mr. Arvind Singh, Adv. For respnts. No.1 & 3 in FAO No.826 & respdt No.2 and 3 in FAO No.827.
NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals.
2. Out of the aforesaid appeals, nine have been filed by United India Insurance Company-insurer of jeep No. HR-32-PA- 0128 and three appeals viz FAOs No.587 of 2008, 3108 of 2009 and 4645 of 2009 have been filed by the claimants.
nd
3. On February 22 , 2004 an accident took place between a four-wheeler (light truck) bearing No. HR-56-0692 and jeep No. HR-32-PA-0128 in the area of village Jabala on Karnal- Assandh road. Unfortunately, seven persons viz. Kehar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Ravinder Singh, Ishwar Dayal, Ram Kumar, Rajinder Singh and Pardeep Kumar died in the accident and Sukhvinder Singh, Varsha Rani and Parveen Kumar suffered injuries. Driver of the jeep also died in the accident. FIR (Exhibit P-3) under Section 304-A etc. IPC was registered in Police Station Assandh against the driver of the four-wheeler.
Sanjay 2013.08.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No. 587 of 2008 44. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured filed separate claim applications under Sections 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Two Awards were passed in the claim applications by the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short "the Tribunal"). The first Award was passed on November 6th, 2007 in respect of the claim applications filed by legal representatives of aforesaid six deceased except Pardeep Kumar (for short "the first Award").
6. The second Award was passed on February 12th, 2009 in respect of claim applications filed by legal representatives of Pardeep Kumar (deceased) and three injured (for short "the second Award").
7. In the claim applications decided by the first Award, the claimants impleaded Rakesh Kumar-owner and United India insurance company-insurer of jeep No. HR-32-PA-0128.
8. In all the claim applications, the income of the deceased was pleaded less than Rs.40,000/- per year. The legal representatives of Kehar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Ravinder Singh, Ishwar Dayal, Ram Kumar and Rajinder Singh were awarded compensation of Rs.2,66,000/-, Rs.3,91,000/-, Rs.1,52,000/-, Rs.3,67,000/-, Rs.1,99,000/- and Rs.3,67,000/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim application till its realization. The insurance company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation.
9. In two claim applications bearing No.18 and 19 driver and owner of the four-wheeler were also impleaded as respondents. The Tribunal, vide second Award, held drivers of both the vehicles viz. Jeep and four-wheeler to be negligent.
10. In the second Award, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- to the parents of Pardeep Kumar and Rs.7500/- to Parveen-injured, Rs.33,000/- to Sukhwinder Singh and Rs.25,000/- to Varsha Rani along with interest at the rate of 8% Sanjay 2013.08.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No. 587 of 2008 5 per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The owner, driver and insurer of the Jeep were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.
11. The insurance company has challenged the judgments of the Tribunal on the ground that since it was a case of composite negligence of both the drivers of the jeep and the canter so, in the first Award, the Tribunal should have held the driver and owner of the canter equally liable to pay the amount of compensation particularly when the FIR was registered against the driver of the canter.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants have assailed the second Award on the ground that it was a case of composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. Each wrong dower is jointly and severally liable to the claimants for payment of the entire compensation.
13. It has been also contended by learned counsel representing the representatives of Rajinder Singh (deceased) that since the claim application was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 17 should have been applied as indicated in the second schedule to the Act.
14. Learned counsel for Sukhwinder Singh-appellant has urged that Sukhwinder Singh suffered multiple injuries and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.33,000/- which requires enhancement.
15. On behalf of claimant Ram Sharan and Smt. Bhagwanti-parents of Pardeep (deceased), it was urged that compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- awarded to the parents, requires enhancement.
16. Firstly, the contention raised by learned counsel for the insurance company is being taken up.
17. The point raised is not res-integra. In two Division Bench judgments of this Court (i) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Kesho Ram and others 2011(1) RCR (Civili) 341 and;
Sanjay 2013.08.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No. 587 of 2008 6(ii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Monika Verma and others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 693, it was held that when the tort- feasors are held guilty of composite negligence, the claimants can claim and recover the amount from anyone of them leaving that tort- feasor to have his remedy of recovery from the other. The claimant can choose to sue any of the tort-feasors and it cannot be defeated by the fact that yet another tort feasor is not made as a party. In A.P. S.R. T.C. And another vs. K. Hemalatha and others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 589 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers in that eventuality, each wrong doer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured need not establish the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately nor it is necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately.
18. In view of this, no fault can be found with the first Award whereby the insurer of the jeep was held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. However, in view of the law enunciated above and in considered opinion of this Court, in the second Award, the approach of the Tribunal was erroneous when it held that both the wrong doers were equally responsible to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. In view of this, the findings of the Tribunal so far as holding both the drivers negligent jointly to the extent of 50-50% is set-aside and it is held that insurance company shall make the entire payment of compensation to the claimants.
19. Coming now to the appeal (FAO No.587 of 2008) with regard to compensation awarded to the legal representatives of deceased Rajinder Singh, the Tribunal awarded compensation as per second schedule because the claimants filed claim application under Section 163-A of the Act but wrongly applied the multiplier of
15. The deceased was 24 years old. He was driver. His income was rd assessed at Rs.3000/- per month. Deduction of 1/3 was made for Sanjay 2013.08.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No. 587 of 2008 7 his personal and living expenses. The dependency was assessed at Rs.2000/- per month. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- including Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium. As per second schedule, considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Applying the same, the dependency comes to Rs. 2000X12x17= Rs.4,08,000.
20. In view of above, the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the legal representatives of Rajinder Singh are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- (4,08,000+2000+5000). The interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.48,000/- shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal.
21. Addressing arguments on behalf of Sukhwinder Singh-appellant, learned counsel has urged that he suffered three fractures and was declared 10% disabled. The Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads:-
1. Medical expenses 10,000
2. Loss of income 9000
3. Disability 10,000
4. Pain and suffering and transportation 4000 etc. Total 33,000
22. Learned counsel has stated that considering the disability to the extent of 10%, the amount of compensation should have been Rs.20,000/- as per the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ram Karan Goyal vs. Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical and others 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103. Finding the submission to be convincing, the amount of compensation under the head of disability is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- so, Sanjay 2013.08.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No. 587 of 2008 8 the claimant is held entitled to total compensation of Rs.43,000/-.
23. Pardeep Kumar, aged 22 years, was bachelor. His income was assessed at Rs.3000/- per month. Deduction of rd 1/3 was made for personal and living expenses and considering the age of the parents, multiplier of 10 was applied and compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- was awarded. In considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation is just and reasonable. It requires no enhancement.
24. For the reasons recorded supra, appeals filed by insurance company and parents of Pardeep Kumar (FAO No.4645 of 2009) are dismissed.
25. The FAOs No.587 of 2008 and 3108 of 2009 are accepted in the manner indicated above.
24.7.2013 (NAWAB SINGH)
SN JUDGE
Refer to Reporter : Yes
Sanjay
2013.08.22 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court