Laxmi vs Gurmail Singh

Navita Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

This appeal is preferred against the award dated 4.6.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Kurukshetra, whereby the present appellants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,200/- for the death of Chander Pal, who was husband of appellant No. 1 and father of other appellants. The appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount.

So far as the case of the appellants before the Tribunal was concerned, it is noticed that Tribunal did not give the facts of the petition filed by the present appellants. Their petition was decided by the same award along with another petition filed by parents of Pankaj, who had died in the same accident. Nothing was mentioned by the Tribunal as to how the death of Chander Pal had occurred so as to show what was the case in claim petition of the appellants. Giving the facts of the case relating to the death of Pankaj, the Tribunal simply observed that there was another petition No. 47 which was filed by the present appellants for compensation of Rs. 10 lacs on account of death of Chander Pal. The age and income of Chander Pal as alleged were given.

Though the name Chander Pal is not given by the Tribunal while recording the facts of the case, it is clear from the grounds of appeal that he was the maternal grand-father of Pankaj who had died along with his grand-son i.e. Pankaj. The facts given by the Tribunal will, therefore, be read accordingly showing that on 16.2.2001, Pankaj along with deceased was going to Bhagwan Nagar, Pipli on moped bearing No. HR-07C-4440, which was being driven by Chander Pal. At about 10.30 a.m., when they reached near Geeta Dawara, respondent No. 1 came from behind driving tractor No. HR-37-8079 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the moped. Chander Pal and Pankaj, both fell down. The former died at the spot while the latter succumbed to his injuries in PGI, Chandigarh. The age of the deceased was given as 59 years and his income as Rs. 6000/- per month.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed identical written statements alleging that the claim was false and no accident, as alleged was caused by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, however, further contended that the accident, if any, was caused on account of negligence of the moped''s driver.

The Insurance Company filed a separate written statement alleging that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such the Insurance Company was not liable even though the accident had taken place. It was pleaded that the vehicle, shown as offending vehicle by the appellant, was not involved in any such accident.

The Tribunal settled the following issues:-

Whether the accident in question, resulting death of Madan son of Om Parkash (Pankaj son of Madan Lal) and Chander Pal son of Paras Ram, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-37-8079 on the part of its driver-respondent No. 1 ? OPP

If issue No. 1 proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OPP

Whether respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence on the alleged date of accident ? OPR

Relief.

It may be mentioned at the outset that there appears to be a mistake on the part of the Tribunal in framing of issue No. 1, where the name of one of the deceased was mentioned as Madan in place of Pankaj. It was Pankaj who died along with Chander Pal. The issue is, therefore, read accordingly. Here, of course, we are concerned with Chander Pal only.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,200/- without application of mind and without appreciating the evidence. The monthly income of deceased Chander Pal was taken to be Rs. 2400/- whereas his son Rajesh Dutt, PW3 appearing in the witness box had stated that his father was getting Rs. 4500/- per month as pension and was also earning Rs. 5000-6000/- from a shop of tractor spare parts. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded on accounts loss of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses cumulatively, which was highly inadequate. He further argued that besides the pension, the income of the deceased should have been taken to be at least Rs. 6000/- per month. He also relied on Pushkar Mehra Vs. Brij Mohan Kushwaha and Others, wherein the income of self employed person of 54 years was taken to be Rs. 7020/- per month.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, argued that the Tribunal rightly held that there was no cogent evidence to show as to what was the income of the deceased from the shop of tractor spare parts and what was his earning capacity. So far as the pension of the deceased is concerned, the family must be getting it after the death of Chander Pal and no loss of income was caused on account of that. So far as the income, leaving pension aside, is concerned, it is held that the Tribunal did not err in holding that it was Rs. 2400/- per month because the accident took place way back in 2001. It was for the appellants to have led some proper evidence about the income of the deceased from the shop. It is not possible that the deceased was running a shop but he could not show any account of shop kept and the same made. The son of the deceased who appeared as PW3 should have produced some documentary evidence like stock register of whatever spare parts were ordered or lying in the shop and also he could produce cash memos showing average monthly sale etc. In the absence of it, the Tribunal is rightly assessed the income of the deceased. Every case has to be decided on its own facts and no generalization can made from the age about the earning capacity of the person. In Pushkar Mehra (supra), the deceased was younger by six years to Chander Pal and also the order of Government of NCT of Delhi dated 9.3.2010 was taken to be considered by the Supreme Court for assessing the income of the deceased. The said rate was applicable in respect of clerical and non-technical supervisory staff. No such rule can be applied here as Delhi has different standards of income. The accident in that case was also much later in point of time.

So far as the multiplier is there, the same was not rightly applied by the Tribunal and according to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 9 should have been applied. The compensation assessed on the basis of income of the deceased will, therefore, come to Rs. 1,72,800/-.

On account of loss of consortium, love and affection etc., the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded cumulatively is enhanced by Rs. 1 lac and amount shall now be Rs. 1,20,000/-. Thus, the total compensation now awarded to the appellants will be Rs. 2,92,800/-. All the terms regarding the interest etc. will remain same.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.