Guddi and Another vs Charan Singh and Others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—On March 31, 1980, there was an accident between a car PUF 4016 and a motor cycle PBM 230 at 8-30 p.m. on Moga-Ludhiana road in the area of village Mehna, The two vehicles were coming in opposite directions. The car was being driven by Charan Singh, the owner of the car, which was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the motor cycle was driven by Surinder Pal Singh. Surinder Pal Singh suffered injuries as a result of which he died on the following day in C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. He was 26 years old and was employed as a sectional officer in the irrigation branch under the Punjab Government and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 831.30. His parents, widow and minor daughter filed claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for an award of Rs. 1,34,000. The matter was contested on which the following issues were framed :

Whether the claimants are the heirs and legal representatives of Surinder Pal Singh, deceased, and were dependent upon him at the time of his death ?

Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of car No. PUR 4016 by Charan Singh, respondent No. 1, and the deceased, Surinder Pal Singh, suffered injuries in that accident as a result of which he died ?

If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ?

Whether Charan Singh, respondent No. 1, was holding a valid licence to drive the car on the date of the accident ?

Whether car No. PUF. 4016 was being used as a taxi at the time of the accident in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged in para No. 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement of respondent No. 2 ? If so, to what effect ?

Relief.

After evidence was led, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, by a well-considered award dated May 24, 1982, found the driver of the car guilty of negligence. It also found that the dependency was Rs. 550 per month but since Rs. 100 had been granted as pension to the widow, it reduced the dependency to Rs. 450 per month. After applying a multiplier of 16, it found that Rs. 86,400 was payable to the widow and minor child. However, since the widow had been given a sum of Rs. 10,000 by the State Government on account of death of her husband, this amount was deducted and it passed an award for Rs. 76,400. The widow and minor child, feeling aggrieved, have filed FAO No. 441 of 1982 whereas the owner of the car has filed FAO No. 517 of 1982. Since common questions arise, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal in regard to the guilt of the driver of the car. In fact, no serious argument-was raised in this behalf.

Counsel for the claimants also did not challenge the dependency of Rs. 550 per month. He disputed the deduction of Rs. 100 per month as also deduction of Rs. 10,000 from the total compensation found payable to the claimants. In addition, he urged that a multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 16. After considering this matter, I am of the view that the Tribunal was in error in deducting Rs. 100 per month from the dependency as also in deducting Rs. 10,000 from the total compensation payable to the claimants. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Bhagat Singh and Sohan Singh Vs. Om Sharma and Others, , whatever payments are granted by the institutions or authorities are not to be deducted or adjusted while finding out the amount due to the claimants. Accordingly, in this behalf, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be modified. On the facts of this case, I am of the view that the Tribunal was not in error in applying a multiplier of 16. Accordingly, on the monthly dependency of Rs. 550 which comes to Rs. 6,600 per year, by applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation payable comes to Rs. 1,05,600. On the aforesaid amount, the claimants would be entitled to 12% interest from the date of the filing of the claim application till payment thereof.

Coming to the apportionment of compensation, Rs, 30,000 along with 12% interest would be payable to the minor and the balance to the widow of the deceased. The amount payable to the minor would be deposited in a special fixed deposit in a scheduled bank for a period for which maximum rate of interest may accrue and would be renewed from time to time till the minor attains majority. Up to the stage the minor is in school, her mother would be liable to maintain her from the amount payable to the mother. After she joins the college and it becomes necessary to have some amount for her studies, food and clothing till she attains majority, her mother would move the Tribunal for payment of a reasonable amount every month or quarterly, as may be feasible out of the interest which may have accrued on the amount of the special fixed deposit in the name of the minor at that time.

The widow of the deceased has already been paid Rs. 50,000 along with interest at the rate of 6%. The balance amount payable to her under this order would be deposited in a fixed deposit for a period which may earn maximum rate of interest, with a direction that monthly or quarterly interest due on that fixed deposit receipt may be paid to her. She would be entitled to encash the fixed deposit receipt only after the expiry of that period and not before. However, in case any urgency arises for withdrawing some amount out of the fixed deposit, it would be open to her to move the Tribunal for appropriate orders.

The only matter which remains to be determined now is whether the whole of the amount is to be paid by the insurance company or Rs. 50,000 along with interest thereon. The Tribunal was in error in holding that Rs. 50,000 would be paid by the insurance company and the remaining by the owner of the car. It is a settled rule that whenever a car is insured for third party risks, the whole of the compensation is payable by the insurance company and there is no limit of any amount. Accordingly, to this extent also, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the whole of the compensation along with interest would be payable by the insurance company, namely, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.