Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rekha Mothsara vs Ram Phal And Ors. on 22 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1(1989)ACC265
JUDGMENT Manmoban Singh Liberhan, J.
1. This order will dispose of six appeals, FAO No. 977 of 1986, Smt. Rekha Mothsara v. Ram Phal and Ors. FAO No. 882 of 1986, Smt. Mahima and Ors. v. Ram Phal and Ors. FAO No. 941 of 1986, Girwar Singh v. Ram Phal and Ors. and FAO Nos. 57, 55 and 56 of 1987, filed by the State of Haryana as cross appeals. They arise out of a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar, dated 10-9-1986, in three claim petitions. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these appeals, the same are being disposed by one order.
2. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,90,300/- to Smt. Rekha Mothsara, widow, and Rs. 40,000/- to Smt. Mahima, mother of the deceased Nardeep Singh on account of his death caused by rash and negligent act of driver Ram Phal of Bus No. HRT 5285 of Haryana Roadways, on 20-9-1984. A sum of Rs. 15,100/- was awarded to Girwar Singh claimant, who was injured in the said accident.
3. Briefly, the facts are taken from claim petition No. 10 of 1985 filed by Smt. Rekha Mothsara. It was averred that on 20-12-1984 at 3.30 P.M. while Nardeep Singh deceased was going on a scooter from Hissar to Hansi along with Girwar Singh as pillion rider, on their reaching near Guava Garden, Hansi, the right side of bus bearing registration No. HRT-5285, driven by Ram Phal driver, while attempting to overtake another bus, struck against the scooter, on left side of the road. On account of the impact, Nardeep Singh was thrown on a kutcha road on further left side of the road, which resulted in his death at the spot. Girwar Singh got multiple injuries and was taken to the hospital at Hansi where he remained admitted for some time and thereafter for one month at Rohtak and subsequently for another month in the Military Hospital. It was averred that the death of Nardeep Singh as well as injuries to Girwar Singh had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Ram Phal driven. Thus, the respondents were alleged to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
4. Smt. Rekha Mothsara, widow of deceased Nardeep Singh, claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages. It was averred Nardeep Singh aged 26-29 years, was employed as Chief Engine Room Artificer in the Indian Navy and was drawing Rs. 1487-50 per month as his salary, with all the perks of free ration, free accommodation, free medical and leave concession for self and family.
5. In claim Petition No. 9 of 1985 Girwar Singh claimed damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss caused to the scooter, expenditure on medicines and hospitalisation, pain and suffering, permanent disability of 40 per cent and on account of decategorisation in the Army Service.
6. In Claim Petition No. 8 of 1985, the mother, father and one minor brother of Nardeep Singh deceased claim Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. It was averred that they were dependent upon the income of Nardeep Singh and suffered the loss on account of his death.
7. The respondents controverted the facts stated except the acci dent. According to the version of the respondents, the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased which dashed into the bus, as the deceased failed to control the scooter coming at a high speed. The injuries to Girwar Singh were not disputed.
8. The learned Tribunal, after calculating the dependency of the clai mants at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month awarded the compensation amoun ting to Rs. 2,30,400/- by applying the multiplier of sixteen. He apportioned the compensation by giving Rs. 40,000/- to the mother and Rs. 1,90,300/- to widow. However, it was found that the father and brother had no locus standi to claim the compensation. Girwar Singh was awarded Rs. 15,000/- which are inclusive of Rs. 500/- for taxi expenses, Rs. 4000/- as medical expenses and Rs. 300/- for scooter repairs. Aggrieved against the award of the learned Tribunal, the claimants preferred three appeals impugning the award, so the State of Haryana impugned the award by three separate appeals.
9. The learned Counsel for the claimants in the respective appeals have contended that the amount awarded is not adequate and is not a just compensation. Though the contentions were raised differently, but in pith and substance, the only contention raised was that while calculating the dependency, the Tribunal has erroneously calculated the amount of Rs. 313/- per month for the facilities like, free ration, accommodation, medical treatment for self and family, and leave concession etc. It is contended that at least by all reasonable inference the value of facilities cannot be less than Rs. 500/- per month and with this addition of Rs. 200/- the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1400/-, after giving deduction for personal expenses out of the total income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is further contended that taking into consideration the facts and circum stances of this case, the multiplier of sixteen is inadequate.
10. In my view, taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration as well as the price index, at the most a nominal increase of Rs. 150/- per month can only be granted Neither the counsel for the appellants nor the counsel for the respondents made any serious objection to it. Thus, giving the benefit of Rs. 150/-, the depandency comes to Rs. 1,350/-per month.
11. The counsel for the appellants has been unable to persuade me to take a different view with respect to the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. By keeping in view the principles laid down in Lachhman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. 1979 PLR 1 (Full Bench and other precedent the multiplier of sixteen is a suitable multiplier. Thus, applying the multiplier of 16 the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,59,200/-. By rounding up the figure, I assess the compensation at Rs. 2,60,000/-.
12. Counsel for the claimants in F.A.O. No. 882 of 1986 has contended that since the widow has remarried, they are entitled to the entire compensation. The said fact is controverted by the counsel appearing for the widow. The argument was advanced before the Tribunal also but the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion, after appreciating the oral evidence, that the version of remarriage cannot be relied upon as the father-in-law while appearing in the witness box had not stated so on oath. Haphazard statement made by the mother was not relied upon. In this appeal also, a sordid attempt has been made by making an application to place on record the affidavit of the father of the deceased to the effect that the widow has remarried. I have gone through the affidavit. To me, it appears to be a futile attempt made by the father, out of greed, to grab the entire amount of compensation. A vague and frivolous affidavit has been filed. It is an attempt to meet the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the widow had not remarried. It was observed by the Tribunal, that since the father had not stated with respect to remarriage on oath, therefore, there cannot be any remarriage. The affidavit has been filed only to fill up the lacuna. There is no mention in the affidavit about the person with whom she has remarried, nor the place or the date of re-marriage has been disclosed, and in the verification the father-in law has stated that according to his belief the widow has remarried. No reliance can be placed on such an affidavit. The learned Counsel has failed to point out any provision of law under which this affidavit can be treated as a substantive evidence.
13. The learned Counsel appearing for the parents-claimants has not been able to point out any evidence on the record to show that they have suffered any loss on account of the death of the deceased. There was no loss to the estate of the claimants. However, the mother has been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation, which I increase to Rs. 50,000/-in view of the fact that I have enhanced the dependency. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- shall be payable to the widow, who is very young and has to live a long life.
14. The learned Counsel appearing for the State has made a frail effort to challenge the finding with respect to the rash and negligent driving of Ram Phal driver. The learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the statement of Girwar Singh about whose presence at the spot there was no dispute. The statement of Ram Phal was rightly rejected for the reasons that while appearing in the witness-box he had putforth a totally new version of the accident than the one stated in his written statement. The Conductor of the bus examined by the respondents did not support the version stated by Ram Phal. Further, the dismissal of Ram Phal driver from service on account of his rash and negligent conduct was not controverted at the bar. From the facts and circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of Ram Phal. The said inference is further corroborated by the photographs Exhibits P. W. 7/A to F.
15. Learned Counsel appearing for the parents further contends that all the legal heirs are entitled to the compensation, that is, the father, mother and the brother jointly with the widow. He has relied upon and Parkash Chand and Ors. Pal Singh and Ors 1985 P.L.R. 538. I fail to understand how the principles laid down in the said judgments have been violated by the Tribunal. There is no dispute that the legal heirs have a locus standi to file a claim petition but in order to get the compensation, they have to further show the loss suffered by them. The statement of the mother of the deceased has been read out to me by the counsel for the widow, in which it has been categorically stated that the deceased was not contributing anything towards the family expenses after he got married. Thus, he was not contributing anything at the time of his death towards the maintenance of father and brother. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, no modification is required with respect to the apportionment of the compensation between the father, mother and brother of the deceased.
16. So far as Girwar Singh injured is concerned, the only argument advanced by the learned Counsel is that the compensation granted to him is too low. The injured stated in his statement that he had suffered 40 per cent disability. There is no rebuttal to that. He had further stated on oath that he had been placed in category C twice over by the Board because of the injuries. Again, there was no rebuttal to it. Keeping all the facts and circumstances into consideration, in my opinion, a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-would be a reasonable compensation and I order accordingly.
17. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of applications till the payment.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the three appeals filed by the claimants are allowed to the extent stated above and the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs in all the appeals.