Kumari Surinder Kaur and another vs Bhagat Singh and others

Gurnam Singh, J.—In the early hours of the morning of December 7, 1964, a collision took place between truck No. RJK 3943 and truck No. PNJ 6770, on Delhi-Bahadurgarh road near the town of Bahadurgarh. Truck No. RJK 3943 was being driven by Bhagat Singh and truck No. PNJ 6770 was being driven by Pokhar Singh. Gurbachan Singh, who was the owner of truck No. PNJ 6770 was sitting in his truck at the time of the accident along with Gurdev Singh. In truck No. RJK 3943, which was being driven by Bhagat Singh, Beni Parshad was also travelling. In the accident Gurbachan Singh and Beni Parshad received fatal injuries and Gurdev Singh was injured.

The minor sons and daughters of Gurbachan Singh, through their mother Pritam Kaur, filed claim petition No. 15 of 1966, Gurdev Singh injured filed claim petition No. 16 of 1968 and the heirs of Beni Parshad deceased filed claim petition No. 18 of 1968, under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. All these claim petitions were disposed of by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, by one and the same order. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, vide order dated 11th of November, 1972 allowed Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the minor sons and daughters of Gurbachan Singh deceased and Rs. 5000/- to Gurdev Singh injured, Rs. 30,000/- were allowed as compensation to the heirs of Beni Parshad deceased. The minor sons and daughters of Gurbachan Singh deceased, being dissatisfied with the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, filed F.A.O. No. 174 of 1972, alleging that the amount of compensation awarded was too low and that the same be enhanced. Gurdev Singh injured also filed F.A.O. No. 175 of 1972 on the ground that the compensation awarded to him was to low. Since both these appeals arise out of one and the same order, the same will be disposed of by this order.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 6th December, 1964 truck No. PNJ 6770 belonging to Gurbachan Singh deceased was hired by Shri Gurbachan Singh injured, resident of V. Mahalon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, district Jullunder, to carry the load of potatoes to sell them in the market at Delhi. Gurbachan Singh deceased also accompanied the truck and was sitting by the side of the driver. Gurdev Singh, the owner of potatoes also travelled in the same truck and was sitting on the extreme left side in the truck. The truck reached near Bahadurgarh at Mile No. 22 in the early morning when it was still dark. At that place, Pokhar Singh driver noticed another truck coming from the opposite side at a fast speed. Pokhar Singh driver dipped his lights and also gave horn. The truck, which was coming from the opposite side bore the Number RJK 3943 and was being driven by Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh did not respond to the dipper used by Pokhar Singh. Pokhar Singh as a precautionary measure slowed down the speed of his truck and took it to the extreme left side of the road. Bhagat Singh over took the bullock cart going ahead of him and lost control of the truck due to rash and negligent driving. He got nervous and the left side of his truck struck against the front portion of the engine of truck No. PNJ 6770. As a result of collision, impact and pushing in of the engine Gurbachan Singh received serious in injuriess and his both legs were fractured. Gurdev Singh also received serious injuries Bhajan Singh was the cleaner of the truck No. PNJ 6770 and he was sitting on the hind side, so he remained unhurt. Gurbachan Singh and Gurdev Singh were taken to the hospital at Delhi where the former succumbed to the injuries.

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the fault of Bhagat Singh driver of truck No. RJK 3943 while determining the quantum of compensation to the heirs of Gurbachan Singh deceased, the learned Tribunal held that he (Gurbachan Singh deceased), was 50 years of age at the time of accident. In the view of the Tribunal, the monthly earnings of Gurbachan Singh deceased were Rs. 500/- and the source of his income was truck No PNJ 6770 The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the heirs of Gurbachan Singh, deceased have not suffered any significant monetary loss by his death and only allowed them compensation of Rs. 5000/-. This finding has been given by the learned Tribunal in para No. 21 of the award which is very cryptic.

The learned counsel for Kumari Surinder etc. appellants vehemently contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal that Gurbachan Singh deceased used to earn Rs. 500/- per month is not based on any evidence and is erreneous. He further pointed out that the learned. Tribunal committed a mistake in taking in to consideration the income of the widow Gurbachan Singh deceased now derived from the truck for determining the amount of compensation.

After going through the record of the case it is apparent that the learned Tribunal committed a mistake in appreciating the evidence of Pritam Kaur widow of Gurbachan Singh deceased while assessing the amount of compensation. It is in the evidence of Pritam Kaur A.W. 7, that the sole earning of her husband was through the working of the truck and he used to give her Rs. 500/- per month for maintenance of children, including their education and household expenses. What Mst. Pritam Kaur stated was that Gurbachan Singh deceased used to give her Rs. 500/- per month for expanses and not that his whole income was Rs. 500/ per month. This statement of Smt. Pritam Kaur was not challenged in cross-examination nor any evidence in rebuttal was produced by the respondents.

Mst. Pritam Kaur widow of Gurbachan Singh is aged 36 years and has five children; three sons and two daughters. Her eldest child is a daughter aged 16 years and is studying in 10th Class Her second daughter is studying in 7th Class and is aged 11 years Her eldest son is aged 14 years and is studying in the 8th class and her second son is aged 10 years studying in 4th Class while her third son aged 7 years is studying in 2nd class. It is also in her statement that she has no landed property. According to Mst. Pritam Kaur, the truck of her husband was financed by the Finance Company and still she has to give Rs. 20,000/- to the said company. Even if it is believed that Mst. Pritam Kaur is getting some earning from the truck, that fact is not a valid ground to say that she has not suffered any monetary loss by the death of her husband. Pritam Kaur has suffered the loss of the company of her husband Gurbachan Singh and her children of his affection on account of the wrongful act committed by the driver of truck No. RJK 3943 and they deserve to be compensated for the same in addition to the pecuniary loss suffered by them.

The earning of the truck depend on the working of the driver. The vehicle will also require expenditure for its maintenance. Mst. Pritam Kaur as deposed by her, still has to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Finance Company, Gurbachan Singh deceased used to accompany the vehicle and in that way must be in a position to earn more than what the driver can do now Section 10-B of the Motor Vehicles Act requires the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. It signifies that the compensation amount should be so assessed as to make a provision for the heirs of the deceased to receive or earn such pecuniary benefits as they could have received from the deceased if he had lived his normal life. In addition to what is the income of Mst. Pritam Kaur from the truck now, the services of Gurbachan Singh would have added to the income and as such it is evident that the heirs of Gurbachan Singh have suffered pecuniary loss with the death of Gurbachan Singh.

In case The State of Punjab v. Mr. Brij Mohan Singh and others (1975) 77 P.L.R. 433 Kaushalya Devi widow of Parkash Chand, who died in the accident, was aged 38 years and was allowed Rs. 2000/- for the loss of company and affection of her husband. Raj Kumari daughter of Mst. Kaushalya Devi, aged 9 years was allowed Rs. 1000/- for the loss of affection and the company of her father. Since Mst. Pritam Kaur and her children have been deprived of the company of Gurbachan Singh and his affection, so they are also entitled to compensation for the same.

Now it is to be seen as to how to assess the pecuniary loss and the loss of affection and separation Gurbachan Singh was aged 50 years at the time of his death and was expected to live at least upto the age of 70 years. His contribution to the family from the earning of the truck after deducting his own expenses atleast can be assessed at Rs. 100/- per month. In this way in 20 years he must have contributed to the family atleast Rs. 24,000/-. Following the finding given in The State of Punjab v. Mr. Brij Mohan Singh and others (1975) 77 P.L.R. 433 (supra), Pritam Kaur is entitled to Rs. 2000/- as a loss of company and affection of her husband and her minor children Rs. 1000/- each for the loss of affection and company of their father. The result is that the heirs of Gurbachan Singh deceased are entitled to Rs. 31000/- in all In view of the aforesaid facts the appellants, the heirs of Gurbachan Singh deceased, are awarded Rs. 31,000/- as compensation. The insurance Company is liable to the extent of Rs. 20000/- as a whole and for the rest of the money, the owner of the vehicles will be liable.

So far as the case of Gurdev Singh appellant is concerned, the learned Tribunal allowed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. In the award, the learned Tribunal observed that Gurdev Singh did not disclose as to how much money he spent on his treatment. It is further observed that he does not seem to have suffered any injury of permanent nature nor does he claim to have suffered any such injury and that he appears to be perfectly normal now.

The learned counsel for Gurdev Singh appellant challenged this observation of the learned Tribunal and referred to the statement of Dr. Lal Chand Narula, A.W. 8, who had X rayed Gurdev Singh. While examined in the Court. Dr. Lal Chand Narula stated that on X-ray it was found that there was no patella except a few pieces of bone and that on account of the same the function of knee joint will be limited and there will be stiffness and weakness. The doctor further stated that on account of this defect Gurdev Singh could not do strenuous work like agriculture etc. The doctor had found mal united fractures in both the bones of left fore-arm and the supnation and pronation of left fore-arm restricted. On the basis of the abovesaid defects, the doctor stated that there are permanent deformities in the left forearm and right knee of Gurdev Singh. The learned counsel for Gurdev Singh also referred to the statement of Gurdev Singh wherein he stated he remained in the hospital, that Jarnail Singh looked after him in the hospital and remained with him for 12/13 days, that if he had to engage a person, he would not have charged him less than Rs. 100/- or Rs. 150/- per month, that when his wife and children came to see him, they stayed there for seven days and had to incur expenditure of Rs. 400/- or Rs. 500/- that in addition to the hospital diet he had to purchase milk, fruit and eggs from the market and had to spend Rs. 8/- per day that he was X -rayed four times and that he also consulted Dr. Karam Singh, orthopedic Specialist, on two occasions. He further deposed that after he was discharged from the hospital, he remained in bed for three months. He further stated that he himself used to work on the land and on account of the accident he could not himself cultivate his land and suffered a loss of Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/-. It is also in his evidence that he had to engage one extra servant for agricultural work and a tractor driver. He gave his age as 46 years and stated that he could do agricultural work upto the age of 70 or 75 years.

In view of the statement made by Gurdev Singh, the learned counsel pointed out that Rs. 5000/- allowed as compensation to Gurdev Singh is a meagre amount. The learned Tribunal concluded that Gurdev Singh appeared to be perfectly normal and allowed Rs. 5000/- for his sufferings. It appears that the learned Tribunal has not cared to go through the evidence produced by Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh definitely stated that he cannot do agricultural work now as has left leg and right arm are weak. The doctor also deposed that the defects in the right knee and left fore-arm of Gurdev Singh are permanent deformities. In view of this evidence, the finding of the learned Tribunal that Gurdev Singh appeared to be perfectly normal is not correct.

It is the evidence of Dr. Lal Chand Narula that he had charged Rs. 16/- per X-ray. Gurdev Singh had been spending Rs. 8/- per day on milk etc. in addition to the diet supplied to him in the hospital. He also had engaged a man to look after him. His wife and children came to see him and they spent rupees four or five hundred when they stayed with him for about seven days. He had to engage a maidservant for cooking purposes and cleaning the house for and paid Rs. 50/- per month for a period of six months for the job. Thus it is not a case where it can be said that Gurdev did not disclose as to how much money he had spent on his treatment. Taking into consideration the permanent deformities suffered by Gurdev Singh and the expenses incurred by him, sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation is not appropriate and in my opinion he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and it is ordered accordingly. Over and above the amount to which the Insurance Company has been made liable; the rest shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle. Thus both the appeals are accepted to the extent mentioned above. This will be an ex-parte order against Shri Behari Lal, owner of truck No. R.J.K. 3943, respondent No. 2.