Managing Director Punjab State bus stand Managing Committee vs Rajwant Kaur

Rakesh Garg, J.—Respondents No. 1 to 5 claimed compensation on account of death of one Amrik Singh son of Kashmir Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 23.4.2011 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle owned by the appellants and driven by respondent No. 6.

The claim petition was contested by the appellants as well as respondent No. 6 raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that they owned the bus in question and the same was not insured. However, it was stated that no accident, as alleged, ever occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 6. All other averments made in the claim petition were denied and dismissal of the same was prayed.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:

Whether Amrik Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 23.04.2011 in the area of village Said Mubarak due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing Registration No. PB-06-G-9509 by respondent No. 3? OPA

Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, what amount and from whom ? OPA

Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 1& 2.

Relief.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle owned by the appellants which was driven by respondent No. 6 in a rash and negligent manner.

The Tribunal further found that at the time of accident, the total income of the deceased Amrik Singh was Rs. 64,885/- per annum and he was 27 years of age. Keeping in view his age and the number of dependants upon him, the Tribunal applied a cut of 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and determined annual income of the deceased at Rs. 48,664/- and determined the compensation at Rs. 8,27,288/- while applying a multiplier of 17. The Tribunal further awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and further Rs. 5,000/- was granted as funeral expenses. Respondent No. 1 being widow of deceased was also held entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. Issue No. 3 was not pressed by the appellants as well respondent No. 6. Thus, award was passed in favour of the respondent-claimants for a sum of Rs. 8,47,288/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization which was to be paid by the appellants as well as respondent No. 6 jointly and severally.

The impugned award has been challenged by the appellants by way of instant appeal.

It has been vehemently argued that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 6. Moreover, the income of the deceased was not proved and there was no evidence to justify the passing of the award in question for an exorbitant compensation of Rs. 8,47,288/-.

The argument raised is misconceived and liable to be rejected outrightly.

To support her case, claimant-respondent No. 1/Rajwant Kaur stepped into the witness box and supported her case. Claimants further examined AW-2 Jagdish Singh and AW-3 Palwinder Singh and placed on record FIR, certified copy of postmortem report of deceased Amrik Singh, Form No. 16-A (depicting income of the deceased) statement of account and a Card issued by PACL etc. However, the appellants led no evidence to rebut the aforesaid evidence. Not only this, no one stepped into the witness box on behalf of the appellants to reiterate their version as taken in the written statement. The evidence of the appellants was closed by order of the Court.

In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Since this appeal is being decided on merits, delay of 5 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.