Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Singh And Anr. vs Ram Niwas And Ors. on 24 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2004)ACC405, (2004)136PLR254
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by Inder Singh and Joginder Singh through their guardian and next friend, Maman Singh, being minor sons of Sh. Hawa Singh, who was killed in an accident on 26.4.1983, involving his motorcycle bearing No. HRD-3381 being driven by Hawa Singh, (deceased) and truck bearing No. HYC-6250 driven by Ram Niwas, respondent No. 1, belonging to Des Raj, respondent No. 2 and insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Karnal, respondent No. 3.
2. As per the facts of the case, Hawa Singh was driving the motor-cycle while Abhe Ram was sitting on the pillion, when at about 8.05 P.M., the truck came from the rear and hit the motorcycle and as a result, Abhe Ram and Hawa Singh fell on the ground. The wheels of the truck passed over the legs of Hawa Singh, as a result of which, he received serious injuries on various parts of his body. He was shifted to the Primary Health Centre, Samalkha where he was given first aid and then to the Civil Hospital, Panipat, where he succumbed to his injuries.
3. The claimants, minor sons of Hawa Singh thereafter filled an application plaiming a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was only 35 years of age at the time of his death and had been enjoying good health and, was in his capacity as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police, drawing Rs. 1300/- as his basic salary.
4. The respondents controverted the averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that the accident had not happened on account of the rash and negligent driving by Ram Niwas, respondent No. 1, and that in any case, the compensation claimed was highly inflated. The respondent Insurance Company also pleaded that in any case, as per the policy of insurance, the liability of the Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were raised;-
"1. Whether the death of Hawa Singh took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HYC-6250 by Ram Niwas, respondent No. 1? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the Insurance Policy was in vogue at the time of the accident? OPP
4. Whether the petition is not properly valued for purposes of court fee? OPR
5. Whether the petition is barred by time? OPR
6. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
7. Whether the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as stated in the preliminary objection? OPR
8. Relief.."
6. On an examination of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver, Ram Niwas. On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal observed that as per the certificate, Ex, A10, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, the salary of the deceased at the time of his death were Rs. 887-10 while PW6 Hari Chand dealing with pay and allowances in the S.P.'s office had given his gross salary of Rs. 946-10 and after deducting a sum of Rs. 70/- on account of provident fund and Rs. 1/- as Group Insurance Scheme, a sum of Rs. 875-10 was payable to him as his pay for the month of April 1983. The Tribunal also observed that as per the statement of PW7 Surinder Kumar, the family pension payable to the defendants of the deceased was Rs. 310/- p.m. The Tribunal accordingly held that the net loss to the family because of Hawa Singh's death was to the tune of Rs. 337/-, which was rounded to Rs. 380/- p.m. The Tribunal also observed that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 45,600/- by way of compensation to the claimants. On issue No. 7, the Tribunal also recorded a finding that as per the policy of the Insurance, Ex.R1, the liability on the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the claim petition as above.
7. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants alone.
8. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Cross objection as well as the appeal are being disposed of by this judgment.
9. It has been contended by Mr. Bali, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the multiplier of 10, which had been applied in this case, was inadequate as admittedly, the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of his death. He has also pleaded that the amount of Rs. 310/-, which was being paid to the claimants as family pension, should not have been deducted while determining the dependency of the claimants on the deceased and as such, his total salary was Rs. 875-10. Mr. Suri, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Cross Objector-Insurance Company, contended that in any case the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- and as such, any payment beyond that amount, was not liable to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company. He has also urged that finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal was not justified on facts.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
11. I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the award of the Tribunal with regard to the finding of negligence of Ram Niwas, the driver of the offending Truck. The aforesaid finding is accordingly confirmed. I am also of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in deducting a sum of Rs. 310/- while determining the total dependency of the claimants on the deceased as the family pension on that amount was being paid to the claimants every month. I am however of the opinion that a multiplier of 10 is inadequate. Admittedly, the deceased was an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police and was 35 years of age at the time of death. In this view of the matter, the proper multiplier would have been 16 and by applying this multiplier the amount of compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 72,960/- which is rounded to Rs. 75,000/-. The claimants would get interest at the rate ordered from the date of filing of the claim petition upto the date of payment of the compensation.
12. Mr. Suri, has however, contended that Insurance Policy, Ex.R1, would show that only such amount was payable by the Insurance Company by way of compensation as was necessary to meet the requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act and that in the year 1983, the amount in question was Rs. 50000/- only. To my mind, this assertion is wrong on facts. A bare perusal of the insurance policy, Ex.R1 shows that the policy premium for third party had been paid at the rate of Rs. 240/- plus another sum of Rs. 100/-, for increasing third party liability. To my mind, therefor, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The appeal filed by the claimant-appellants is, therefore, allowed in the above terms whereas the cross Objections filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. No order as to costs.