Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Kaur And Ors. vs Maghar Singh And Ors. on 19 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: II(1993)ACC437, 1994ACJ45, (1993)104PLR297
JUDGMENT Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatinda, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') who on a claim application awarded a sum of Rs. l5000/- under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claim application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the undisputed facts of the case which emerges from the case are that one Gurcharan Singh, a police constable, aged 37 years was killed on 3-2-1984 in a vehicular accident which took place with truck No PBI 4397 driven by Maghar Singh, its driver and owned by one Jarnail Singh The truck was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited.
3. In this case, the death of the deceased in a vehicular accident involving the abovesaid truck number is not in dispute. The question which requires consideration is whether Gurcharan Singh died in a vehicular accident by rush and negligent driving of the truck driven by Maghar Singh owned by Jarnail Singh. The Tribunal had rejected the claim petition under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that Bachitter Singh (AW--1) father of the deceased who was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident had stated before the police that the accident had not resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. However, Bachitter Singh while appearing as AW-4 had stated on oath that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. It was on the basis of this discrepancy that the Tribunal had rejected the claim application claimants filed under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. I have perused the evidence on the file.
5. It will be pertinent to note that in the instant case the driver of the vehicle was not examined. Had he been produced, he would have been best person to state the manner in which the accident had taken place. The statement of Bachitter Singh, who is father of the deceased was recorded by the Tribunal on solemn affirmation He had stated in categoric terms that on the fateful day, he along with his son was going on the correct side of the road. His son Gurcharan Singh was on the katcha berm on the left side when the offending vehicle suddenly swerved towards him (Gurcharan Singh) and struck against him killing his son at the spot. According to: this witness, at that time Truck was being driven by Maghar Singh. The police had obtained his thumb impression at the time of investigation in the village In cross-examination this witness had also stated that the truck after knocking down his son came to a shault at the spot. The presence of Bachiter Singh (AW-4) at the spot has not been disputed in any manner. His' statement cannot be brushed aside. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, version given by Bachitter Singh has not been controverted by the other side by leading evidence as the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question.
7. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal had assessed the annual dependency as Rs. 4000/- by taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1000/- The Tribunal by applying a multiplier of 15 had held that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 60,000/ as compensation on account of pecuniary loss I am of the view that it is a lit case in which the Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 21 as the deceased was 37 years old at the time of his death and would have served in the Police Force for another 21 years The dependency of the deceased has not been assessed properly. The deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- per month out of which he must be spending Rs. 400/- per month on himself and the rest i.e. Rs. 600/. on his family. In view of this, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 7200/- By applying a multiplier of 21, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,51,200/-. The clamants are accordingly held entitled to Rs. 1,51,200/- as compensation with 12% interest from the date of claim application. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal is to be adjusted.
8. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.