Gopal Singh vs Manjit Kaur and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.

1.This appeal by Gopal Singh, the alleged owner of the offending vehicle station-wagon No. DLL-8898, is directed against the award dated 4-8-1982 made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, (hereinafter called ''the Tribunal''), deciding together two claim applications u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1919.

On 27-9-1976 Jagir Singh and his son Gurdev Singh were returning on their cycles from Majitha town to their village Golewali Gurdev Singh and his wife Manjit Kaur were on one cycle while Gurcharan Kaur, wife of Jagir Singh and Dilawar Singh, minor son of Gurdev Singh, were on the other cycle of Jagir Singh. Dilawar Singh was in the lap of Gurbachan Kaur. Station-wagon No. DLL-8898 came from the opposite direction at about 10 A.M. on the wrong side of the road and struck against both the cycles near village Rori. All the cyclists were run over by the vehicle which was being driven by Maddi alias Sant Parkash respondent No. 5 rashly and negligently. Gurdev Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and died in the hospital at Amritsar on the same day. Others were also admitted to the hospital and received treatment for their injuries. They, however, survived the accident. Two claim applications were filed before the learned Tribunal--one by Jagir Singh for damages amounting to Rs. 10,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the other by Manjit Kaur, Gurbachan Kaur and Dilawar Singh--wife, mother and the minor son respectively of Gurdev Singh deceased for compensation on account of his death. They claimed Rs. 2 lacs as compensation on account of monetary loss to them as a result of the death of Gurdev Singh.

Both the applications were consolidated. The learned Tribunal received evidence and decided the same vide award under appeal. The claim application filed by Jagir Singh was dismissed as he could not prove the quantum of damages to which he was entitled. He did not produce any evidence as to the expenditure incurred by him for undergoing treatment. No. evidence was produced with regard to the extent of injuries suffered by him. However, the other claim application was allowed. It was held that Manjit Kaur and Dilawar Singh, the widow and the minor son respectively of Gurdev Singh deceased, were entitled to recover damages on account of his death to the tune of Rs. 38400/-. The claim of Gurbachan Kaur was, however, dismissed. The learned Tribunal further held that the appellant being the owner of the offending vehicle was liable for payment of the said amount of damages.

Being aggrieved against the said award, Gopal Singh appellant has preferred this appeal. He also moved CM. No. 2002-CII of 1986 under Order XVIII, Rule 17-A, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for adducing in evidence Daily Diary No. 6 dated 3-10-1976 of Police Station, Majitha, to establish that Sant Parkash alias Maddi respondent was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Cross-Objections No. 22-CII of 1983 have been filed by claimant-respondents Manjit Kaur and Dilawar Singh minor. Their grievance is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. There are three questions which require determination in this appeal--

(i) Who is the owner of the offending vehicle station-wagon No. DLL-8898 ?

(ii) Whether Sant Parkash alias Maddi respondent No. 5 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident ?

(iii) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of death of Gurdev Singh to his widow and minor son is inadequate ? If so, what should be the amount of compensation ?

At regards the first point, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is overwhelming evidence on the record that the appellant had told the station-wagon above mentioned to Ajaib Singh and his two sons--Labh Singh and Sant Parkash respondents Nos. 3 and 5. He invited my attention to the copy of a notice Ex. RW 1/2 allegedly sent by Gopal Singh appellant to Ajaib Singh, postal receipt Ex. RW l/l and various other postal receipts and acknowledgements that he had sent letters to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Transport Officer, Amritsar, Station House Officers of Police Stations Majitha, Fatehgarh Churian and Dera Baba Nanak complaining that Ajaib Singh had purchased the said vehicle from him and he was not getting the same registered in his name. He no doubt admitted that he himself had purchased the vehicle in September, 1974 from Delhi. I have gone through the entire evidence on the record. I find that the appellant has miserably failed to prove that he had sold the vehicle to Ajaib Singh. He could not produce any receipt signed by Ajaib Singh vide which he might have taken delivery of the vehicle from him, nor could he produce any evidence that he had given any affidavit for the transfer of the vehicle to Ajaib Singh. Much less is there any evidence to the effect that Ajaib Singh ever applied or got the registration of the vehicle transferred in his favour. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that at a given stage the vehicle was taken on supurdari by Para raj it Singh is not at all sufficient for the conclusion that Gopal Singh in fact sold the vehicle to Ajaib Singh. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that on other occasions Gopal Singh appellant took the vehicle on supurdari from the Court of Shri L.R. Roojam, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ajnala. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Coming to the second point, there is a categoric statement of Jagir Singh PW 11 --one of the claimants who fortunately survived the accident--that at the relevant time the vehicle was being driven by Maddi alias Sant Parkash. His statement has not been questioned in cross examination. In the first information report Ex. PW 7/1 again Jagir Singh categorically stated that the vehicle was being driven by Maddi son of Ajaib Singh respondent. Even if no reliance is placed on the statements of Harbans Singh PW 3 and Harjinder Singh PW 4, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Jagir Singh. He had no interest in involving Maddi unless he was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover, during the cross-examination of Manjit Kaur PW 9 a specific question was put to her by the counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 5 that Harbans Singh and Harjinder Singh PWs were travelling in the vehicle and it was being driven by Maddi at the time of accident. There is, therefore, positive evidence on the record that Maddi alias Sant Parkash respondent No. 5 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. I, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned Tribunal on this point and hold that Maddi alias Sant Parkash respondent No. 5 was the driver of the vehicle at the material time.

Now coming to the question of compensation, it has been held by the learned Tribunal that the monthly income of Gurdey Singh deceased was Rs. 300/-. He must have been spending Rs. 100/- on himself and leaving Rs. 200/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and minor child. The fact that he was aged 24 years at the time of the accident is also not in dispute. The learned Tribunal, however, applied the multiplier of 16 for working out the compensation. In my view, the deceased being quite young, multiplier of 20 ought to have been applied to work out the compensation payable to his widow and minor son. I accordingly hold that the claimant-respondents Manjit Kaur and Dilawar Singh minor are entitled to compensation on account of the death of Gurdev Singh to the tune of Rs. 200 x 12 x 20== Rs. 48,000/-.

Consequently, I partly allow this appeal as also the Cross Objections. I hold that Manjit Kaur and Dilawar Singh, widow and minor son of Gurdev Singh deceased, are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 48,000/- on account of his death. Gopal Singh appellant and Sant Parkash alias Maddi respondent No. 5 are jointly and severally liable for payment of this amount or compensation to the aforesaid claimant-respondents. The claimants shall also be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of their abovesaid claim application till the date of payment of the amount of compensation to them. There shall, however, be no order as to costs so far as this appeal and the Cross Objections are concerned.