Balwinder Kaur and Others vs Avtar Singh and Others

Tej Pratap Singh Mann, J.—Along with the present appeal filed by the claimants with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount, the Court intends to dispose of FAO No. 7193 of 2011 filed by the Insurance Company also as both the appeals have arisen out of the impugned award rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar on 18.8.2011. The claimants had filed petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of their bread earner-Charan Singh in a motor vehicular accident. According to them, on 12.5.2010, the deceased alongwith his nephew Jagdev Singh was proceeding from village Mullanpur Garibdass towards his village Nanherian. Both of them were on their respective motor cycles. The deceased was driving his motor cycle bearing No. PB-27-C-6743 on the left side of the road at a normal speed. At about 7.00 P.M. when he reached in the area of village Sialba, a Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No. PB-05-L-0052 driven by Avtar Singh-respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the opposite direction and struck against his motor cycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and received multiple serious injuries to which he succumbed at the spot. He was about 43 years of age and the only bread earner of the family. He used to do agriculture and dairy farming besides flower business and, accordingly, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The offending Scorpio vehicle was owned by Navdeep Singh-respondent No. 2 and insured by the New India Assurance Company Limited-respondent No. 3. Accordingly, prayer was made for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20, 00,000/-.

The claim petition was resisted by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle by asserting that no such accident, as alleged by the claimants, took place on 12.05.2010. The police registered a false case against respondent No. 1 in connivance with the claimants. Accordingly, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

By filing a separate written statement, the Insurance Company also contested the claim petition. Preliminary objections regarding the frame of the petition, locus-standi and cause of action as well as validity of the driving licence of respondent No. 1 were taken. It was also pleaded that offending vehicle was not having any fitness certificate and route permit. Prayer was resultantly made for dismissing the claim petition.

Upon completion of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

Whether Charan Singh son of Phuman Singh had died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 12.5.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. in the area of village Sialba Police Station Kurali due to rash and negligent driving of Scorpio Jeep No. PB-05-L-0052 by respondent No. 1? OPP

Whether the claimants are the legal heir of deceased Charan Singh son of Phuman Singh and are entitled to receive the compensation on account of death of Charan Singh son of Phuman Singh? If so to what extent and from whom? OPP.

Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of alleged accident? If so its effect? OPR3

Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? If so, its effect? OPR3

Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR3.

Relief.

In support of their claim petition, the claimants examined Jagdev Singh as PW-2, Manjit Kumar as PW-3, Kuldip Singh as PW-4, besides claimant, Balwinder Kaur herself stepping into the witness box as PW1. However, none of the respondents examined any witness nor tendered any document in evidence.

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on file, the Tribunal held that the death of Charan Singh occurred in a motor vehicular accident which was caused by respondent No. 1 by driving offending Scorpio Jeep in a rash and negligent manner. The issue as to whether the appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased and entitled to receive compensation on account of his death was held in their favour as while filing the written statements, the respondents had not denied that the appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased-Charan Singh. After assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- and deducting 1/4th out of the same which the deceased might be spending upon himself, the Tribunal calculated the dependency as Rs. 6,000/- per month or Rs. 72,000/- per annum. As the deceased was 43 years of age, in terms of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, multiplier of 14 was applied so as to calculate total dependency as Rs. 10,08,000/-. To the said amount, another amount of Rs. 30,000/-, i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony was added so as to hold the claimants entitled to receive Rs. 10,38,000/- which was rounded of to Rs. 10,40,000/- as compensation. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization.

In the present appeal, the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation amount whereas in the connected appeal filed by the Insurance Company, prayer has been made for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the amount of compensation was highly excessive, arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable.

The short point involved in both the appeals is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants might be entitled to.

In order to show as to what income the deceased was earning, the claimants had examined one of them i.e. Balwinder Kaur as PW-1, Manjit Kumar as PW-3 and Kuldip Singh as PW-4. In her examination-in-chief PW-1 Balwinder Kaur deposed that her deceased husband used to do agriculture and flower business besides running a dairy and, thus, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. She brought on record original copy of dairy business as Ex. PA, original copy of record of flower business as Ex. PB and original bills Ex. PC regarding selling of agriculture produce. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband was not paying any income tax nor he was having PAN Card nor he had also filed any income tax return. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. She also denied the suggestion that her husband was not running dairy and flower business. She stated that her husband was having 4 1/2 Killas of land. However, after the death of her husband, she had given the land on Chakota @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Similarly, PW-3 Manjit Kumar testified in his examination-in-chief that he was running a shop in the name of Manjit Flower and Decorating House at Kurali for the last 10 years. He knew the deceased who used to supply various kind of flowers ever since the year 2006 and earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- every month as a result thereof. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was not his relative but only supplying the flowers to him. He also stated that Ex. PB was not written by him but was written by the deceased. He further stated that no name was written on Ex. PB but only rough work was done therein. He admitted that Ex. PB did not bear the signatures of the deceased. However, he admitted that the name of his shop was not written on Ex. PB. The third witness i.e. PW-4 Kuldip Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was running a shop under the name and style of Billu Confectionary at Kurali. He knew the deceased who had been supplying milk to him ever since the year 2005 and earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- from him every month. In his cross examination, he stated that the deceased was not his relative but only supplying milk to him. Ex. PA was not written by him but was written by the deceased. He admitted that it was not written on Ex. PA that it was the record regarding selling of milk. There was no name written of the persons on Ex. PA and it was only rough work done therein.

From the aforementioned evidence, it stands clearly established that the deceased had been cultivating his land besides doing dairy farming and engaged in flower business. Under these circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 8,000/- is on the lower side. Facts and circumstances of the case show that deceased must be earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The size of the family of the deceased being 4, i.e. his widow- Balwinder Kaur, minor daughter-Daljit Kaur and two minor sons, namely, Davinder Singh and Sarabjit Singh, 1/4th can be taken out as the amount which the deceased might be spending upon himself. Resultantly, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 7,500/- or Rs. 90,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was 43 years of age and in terms of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of ''14'' and the same multiplier when applied in the present case, the total dependency is calculated as Rs. 12,60,000/-. To the said amount, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony can also be added, as had been done by the Tribunal so as to calculate the total compensation as Rs. 12,90,000/-

Resultantly, the compensation amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,90,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization. All the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. However, there shall be no order as regards the costs. The entire enhanced amount of compensation shall be receivable by Balwinder Kaur, claimant. FAO No. 6576 of 2011 filed by the claimants is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above whereas FAO No. 7193 of 2011 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.