Kirpal Kaur vs Surinder Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will also dispose of F. A.O. No. 386 of 1983, as both those appeals have arisen out of the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jullundur, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated March 4, 1982.

In the accident which took place on October 12, 1978, at 8.15 A.M. Thaman Singh aged about 54 years died. He was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in 223 ABO Depot at Suranasi (Jullundur) and drawing Rs. 837/- per month as his salary. The claim petition was filed by his widow Kirpal Kaur, appellant, and his mother Gian Kaur. According to them, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. MRL-3229, driven by Surinder Singh alias Salvinder Singh as he could not control the said truck which struck against the scooter of the deceased who was going after getting the petrol from Bawa and Company Petrol Pump and had stopped the scooter on the Kutcha portion of the road as soon as he saw the respondent driving at a fast speed and not in full control of the truck. Inspite of this, the truck struck against the scooter. As a result, Thaman Singh fell down and sustained injuries while Sulakhan Singh who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter had a narrow escape. The accident witnessed by Sulakhan Singh and Gulab Singh. The claim was contested on the plea that no accident had taken place as alleged by the claimants. The insurance company pleaded that its statutory liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues.

(1) Whether the death of Thaman Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. MRL-3229 by Suriader Singh, respondent.

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation are the petitioners entitled and from whom 1

(3) Relief.

Under issue No. I, the Tribunal found that since the front left portion of the truck had hit the scooter, it clearly showed that the driver of the truck had not taken precautions. Anyhow, the victim entered the road from wrong side and it appeared he was at fault to the extent of 3/4 while the truck driver had contributed only to the extent of 1/4. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed the monthly loss to the claimants on account of the untimely death of Thaman Singh to be Rs. 300/-, which came to Rs. 3,600/- per year. Keeping in view the fact that the victim had to retire in another four years, it applied a multiplier of four and thus, a sum of Rs. 14,400/-was determined as compensation. Since under issue No. 1, the deceased was found at fault to the extent of 3/4, so the total amount of compensation was determined to be Rs. 3,600/-. It further found that since Kirpal Kaur was already getting family pension which contingency would not have arisen in case of retirement of her husband, the deceased''s mother was entitled to the said amount of compensation. It also allowed interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum thereon from the date of award till the date of payment. Dissatisfied with the same, both the claimants have filed these appeals.

The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that it has been �wrongly held by the Tribunal that the deceased was at fault to the extent of 3/4. It was maintained that the respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal and in view of the testimony of Gulab Singh, AW 4, who was an eye-witness to the accident, it could not be held that the deceased was guilty in any manner. The deceased stopped his scooter on the kutcha berm of the road, as according to the learned Counsel, it was evident from the photograph on the record. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the finding of the Tribunal in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal The learned Counsel further contended that Thaman Singh, deceased, was getting Rs. 837.20 as his salary and, therefore, it could not be held that he was only contributing Rs. 300/- towards his family. According to the learned Counsel, even the multiplier of four was wrongly applied The learned Tribunal also erred in taking into consideration the pensionary benefits which were given to the widow on account of the death of deceased.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that it has been wrongly held by the Tribunal that the deceased was at fault to the extent of 3/4, while the truck driver was only to the extent of 1/4. Admittedly neither the truck driver, nor anybody also was produced in evidence in rebuttal on behalf of the respondents. Gulab Singh, who was an eye-witness appeared as AW 4, who categorically stated that the deceased had stopped his scooter on the kutcha berm of the metalled road on seeing the truck coming from Kartarpur side towards Jullundur. The truck was being driven at a high speed. This part of his statement was never challenged in his cross-examination. Even from the photograph produced on the record by the claimants, Exhibit A. 4, it is clear that the scooter was on the Kufcha berm of the road and never came on the road, as found by the Tribunal. In the absence of any rebuttal; particularly the non-production of the truck driver, it is clear that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent. The approach of the Tribunal was, thus, wholly wrong and illegal. The accident in which the victim Thaman Singh died, had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by Surinder Singh, respondent.

As regards the amount of compensation, Kirpal Kaur, the widow of the deceased, who appeared as AW 3, stated that she and her mother-in-law Gian Kaur, resided jointly and were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased who was getting Rs. 837/- per month as his salary. That being so, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased must be contributing atleast 600/- towards his family per month. Thus, his annual dependency comes to Rs. 7,200/-. It is true that the deceased was to retire after four years and therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of four; particularly taking into consideration the pensionary benefits which were given to his widow. However, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this-Court in Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Smt. Om Sharma 1983 Punjab Law Reporter 1, the pensionary benefits etc. could not be taken into consideration while awarding the compensation. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the multiplier of six would meet the ends of justice. Under the circumstances, the total amount thus determined as compensation comes to Rs. 43,200/-.

Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed The award of the Tribunal is modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 43,200/- which will be payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the Tribunal, from the date of the application till realisation. Out of the said amount of compensation, Kirpal Kaur, the widow of the deceased will get Rs. 30,000/-whereas Rs. 13,200/-would be paid to his mother Gian Kaur, with interest as indicated above. The liability of the respondents shall be joint and several.