Lekh Raj and Others vs Kirpal Singh and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Patiala vide award dated January 4, 1984 dismissed the claim petition filed by Lekh Raj and Ors. for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Vijay Kumar occurred in a Motor Vehicles Accident on August 6, 1979, Vijay Kumar son of Lekh Raj appellant on the day of the accident had gone to see a cinema Show. While he was returning during the night, he was fatally hit by Bus No. PNO-1900, which was driven rashly and negligently. Within a few minutes of the accident, Vijay Kumar died on the spot. His parents Lekh Raj and Sita Kumari and his brothers, and sisters, other claimants, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Vijay Kumar was employed with Satish Kumar Bansal of Moga Engineering Works, Patiala and getting Rs. 300/- per mensem. FIR No. 43 dated August 6, 1979 was lodged with respect to the accident The claim was contested on behalf of Kirpal Singh and Roor Singh, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, by filing a written statement. The New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 3 filed a separate written statement whereas respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed a separate statement. Respondent No. 6 yet filed a separate written statement. All the respondents leaving apart the Insurance Company took the stand that Kirpal Singh was not the owner of the truck. However, they denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. They also denied that the deceased was employed. The Insurance Company took up the stand that the truck was not insured and an alternative plea was also taken that the person driving the truck (Roor Singh), did not possess any valid licence. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Vijay Kumar deceased was killed in a motor vehicle accident on August 6, 1979 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PNO-1900 by Roor Singh respondent No. 2? OPA

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and from whom? OPA

(3) Hether the claim application is barred by limitation against respondents Nos. 4 to 6? OPR

(4) Relief.

Issue No. 1 was decided against the claimants. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the insurance Company, respondent No. 3 was not liable. However, the compensation payable was assessed at Rs. 35,000/-. Under issue No. 3, the claim application was held to be within time qua respondents Nos. 4 to 6. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, the claim application was dismissed.

Issue No. 1.

A.W. 4 Dharampal and A.W. 8 Bhupinder Kumar deposed about the manner in which the accident took place resulting in causing the death of Vijay Kumar. Their evidence did not find favour with the Tribunal as they did not inform the police about the accident. In my view, on that ground alone, their evidence could not be discarded. Their evidence finds corroboration from other evidence, produced in the case which is in the form of photographs. These photographs otherwise establish the negligence of driver of the truck resulting in the accident, particularly photograph, Exhibit A. 5 clearly shows that the accident took place on the road itself as the cycle is shown lying in the road itself. Exhibits A. 11 and A. 12 are the photographs of the ill-fated bus. Photograph, Exhibit A. 11,clearly shows damage towards the left side front of the bus which was involved in the accident. The fact that Vijay Kumar died on account of the injuries suffered is established from the post-mortem report, Exhibit A. 1. According to PW 1 Dr. Bir Bhan Singla, who conducted post-mortemon the dead body of Vijay Kumar, the injury suffered could be the result of motor vehicle accident. A.W. 2 Jagdev Singh, Photographer of the C.I.A. Staff, deposed about the photographs, Exhibits A. 10 to A. 12. At already Noticed, it was Lekh Ram A.W. 3 who got the first information report registered at the Police Station. He was at his house when he was informed of the accident and he reported the same. A.W. 7 A.S.I. Prem Singh investigated the criminal case. He inspected the spot, got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body. He also took into possession the ill-fated bus No. PNO 1900 of Nirankar Bus Service, Patiala as deposed to by A.W. 7 A.S.I. Prem Singh, and got the same photographed. During cross-examination he stated that Dharampal and Bhupinder Kumar witnesses told him the name of the bus driver to be Roor Singh and he recorded their statements. No evidence was produced by the respondents to rebut the evidence produced by the claimants. From the evidence produced by the claimants, no manner of doubt is left that Vijay died on account of the accident caused with Bus No. PNO 1900. The two witnesses of the occurrence Dharampal and Bhupinder Kumar narrated the manner of the accident, which shows that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Roor Singh. They gave statement to the Investigating Officer during investigation of the criminal case. Merely on the ground that they did not go straight away to the Police Station to report is not enough to discard their evidence. Finding of the Tribunal under issue No. 1, is, therefore, reversed and the issue is decided in favour of the claimants holding that Vijay Kumar died on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PNO-1900 by Roor Singh respondent.

Issue No. 2.

Vijay Kumar deceased was aged about 17/18, years at the time of his death. He was getting Rs. 300/- per mensem while working in the working, as deposed by Lekh Ram A.W. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that out of Rs. 300/- Vijay Kumar who was unmarried was spending about Rs. 100/- on himself leaving balance of Rs. 200/- for the family and applying twenty as multiplier, the compensation on account of the death of Vijay Kumar should be assessed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision of the Full Bench in Smt. Bimla Devi and etc. v. National Insurance Com. and Anr. 1988 (2) PLR 301 : 1988 ACC 522 wherein in the case of deceased aged about 19 years, a student of Industrial Training Institute, also doing part time job and thus rendering help to the family, a sum of Rs. 24,000/- was determined as just compensation. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that ratio of the Full Bench decision cannot strictly be applied to the case in hand, Vijay Kumar, as already noticed above, was employed and getting Rs. 300/- as his wages. He was not a student. No doubt his wages were to increase after a lapse of time but at the same time his liabilities would also have increased after his marriage. Furthermore, Lekh Raj claimant being aged about 56 years could live for another 14/15 years taking life span at 70 years As far as minor claimants are concerned; primarily they are dependent upon Lekh Raj, a pensioner. Their dependency, if any, on Vijay Kumar would have soon ended on their attaining majority or on the marriage of Vijay Kumar. In the present case, minor children do not deserve to be granted any compensation. However, parents of Vijay Kumar deceased deserve to be given the compensation. As in this case a suitable multiplier cannot be fixed taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, a rough estimate of compensation was required to be fixed and the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- which is not considered to be inadequate or excessively high. Thus, Lekh Raj and Sita Kumari are held to be entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000/- in equal shares.

Since the bus was not insured, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. Furthermore, Roor Singh appeared as R.W. 2 and stated that he did not know driving and did not possess any driving licence for heavy motor vehicle. That being the position, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the amount of compensation being assessed.

RW 1 Kirpal Singh stated that he had no concern with Bus No. PNO 1900 and he is not a partner with Messrs Nirankar Bus Service, Patiala. Thus, Kirpal Singh is also not liable for the amount awarded. Since the bus belonged to Nirankar Bus Service, respondent No. 6, and other respondents, who were partners namely Bal Kishan and Gurbax Singh, they would be liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.

Issue No. 3.

No argument was addressed on this issue. The finding of the Tribunal in this respect is affirmed. The claim application is held to be within time.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 300/-. The award of the Tribunal is set aside. The appellants Lekh Raj and Sita Kumar in equal shares are allowed compensation of Rs. 35,000/- with 12 per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of institution of the claim application i.e. 1st February, 1980 till realisation, against Roor Singh driver, Bal Kishan, Gurbax Singh and M/s. Nirankar Bus Service, owners of the bus, who would be jointly and severally liable. claim petition against other respondents is dismissed.