Kamlesh Kumari and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed against the award dated 2.6.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ''the Tribunal'') in MACT Case No. 258 of 29.11.1987.

The appellants along with proforma respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of deith of Shri Raghubir Singh, who was going on his Scooter No. CH-01-C-3772. Shri Raghubir Singh met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. DL-I-GA-1696 near the turning of Sector 24-C, Chandigarh. It was claimed that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver as he suddenly turned the truck towards wrong side without giving any signal which hit the scooter, as a result of which Shri Raghubir Singh fell down on the road and sustained injuries and he succumbed to those injuries in hospital. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs (Rs. fifteen lacs) was claimed on account of the death of Shri Raghubir Singh.

The claim was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 denied all the assertions made in the claim petition and it was claimed that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased Reghubir Singh. It was pleaded that Raghubir Singh was driving the scooter at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was further claimed that in an anxiety to overtake the truck, he lost his balance and fell down on the road. It was also claimed that respondent No. 2 had lifted the scooterist in an unconscious condition and shifted him to PGI, Chandigarh and got him admitted there.

Respondent No. 2 filed a separate written statement taking similar stand as taken by respondent No. 1 and denied all other assertions in the claim petition for want of knowledge.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Raghubir Singh? OPP

Whether Raghubir Singh died in a motor vehicle accident by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLl-G-A-1696? OPP

Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, if so how much, and from which of them? OPP

Whether the deceased himself was guilty of contributory negligence, if so, its effect? OPP

Relief.

On issue No. 1, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Raghubir Singh. On issue No. 2, it was held that Raghubir Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLl-GA-1696. On issue No. 4, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased Raghubir Singh. Accordingly, the plea of negligent driving by the deceased was rejected.

On issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal by treating the deceased to be an ordinary labourer assessed his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month and accordingly assessed his dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 16, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. one lac ninety two thousand) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellants has challenged the findings recorded by the Lok Adalat on issue No. 3 primarily on the ground that the evidence by way of exhibit P-2 was produced on record which showed that the deceased was earlier employed as a Rollerman with Atul Fasteners Ltd., Bhiwani and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,321/-. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased had left the job in order to have better prospects and accordingly set up his own unit under the name and style of M/s B.S. Fasteners, in 964, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. This part of the evidence was not controverted. However, the stand of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month was disbelieved on account of failure to produce any documentary evidence on record in support of the said contention. In view of the fact that no documentary or other evidence, except the bare statement of the wife of the deceased Kamlesh Kumari, was brought on record, the assessment of dependency was made on the basis of guess work. Once the documentary evidence was brought on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,321/- per month while working with the previous employer, it cannot be said that his income would have reduced in any way when he started his own business. The deceased could have taken the risk of leaving the job only when he was sure of better prospects especially keeping in view the size of his family which was solely dependent upon him. Accordingly, I feel that in view of Exhibit P-2 having been placed on record, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed at Rs. 3,321/- per month by the Lok Adalat keeping in view the fact that the deceased had set up his own unit which was at initial stage and it was presumed that he would be spending more amount on him after his business having been promoted. Thus, a deduction of Rs. 1,321/- on account of his personal and other expenses would be justified and the dependency is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 would I be just and fair and accordingly the compensation payable to the claimants is assessed at'' Rs. 4,08,000/- (Rs.4 lacs eight thousand). In addition, thereto, the claimants would be entitled to consortium of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) and funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. two thousand). Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 4,15,000/- (Rs. four lacs fifteen thousand). Keeping in view the fact that the appellant-claimants were satisfied with the assessment of compensation made by the Lok Adalat at Rs. 4,08,000/- no interest would be payable on the enhanced amount if the same is paid to the appellants within two months of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, however, if trie same is not deposited within stipulated period, interest @ 12% p.a. will be payable after the said date.