AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Badi, J.—This judgment will dispose of these two appeals (FAO No. 2089 and 2021 of 1995) one filed at the instance of the National Insurance Company and the other by the Haryana Roadways against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Panipat dated May 5, 1997.
In Facts, in brief, are as under:
On 11.9.1992 Jasbir Singh (Since deceased) along with Dharampal PW 2 and Tirlochan Singh were going from Yamunanagar to Delhi in Maruti Car No. DBG 3336 being driven by Jasbir Singh at a very moderate speed on his left hand side. When the car was 1 KM away from the Octroi post Panipat on the G.T. Road, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HNL 3336 driven by Virender Singh respondent No. 5 came from the opposite side. While the bus driver was trying to overtake another vehicle which was going ahead to him, he brought his bus on the wrong side of the road and in order to avoid the accident Jasbir Singh took his car to the left side of the Kacha portion with the result that it fell down in the Khadans. Jasbir Singh died at the spot whereas Dharampal PW 2 and Trilochan Singh, received injuries. An FIR Ex. PA was, also lodged at the instance of Dharampal and Virender Singh was sent up for trial Under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. On these facts the heirs of Jasbir Singh who are his mother and three minor brothers have filed the present claim petition on the plea that he was 22 years of age at the time of his death and was getting a salary of about Rs. 2000/- per month. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 3000/- had been spent on transporting his dead body from the place of the incident to Yamunanagar and on conducting his last rites.
On notice of the petition, various replies were filed on behalf of the driver as also by the State of Haryana and they controverted the fact that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus. The appellant, the insurer of the car (respondent No. 6) in the claim petition denied its liability to make any payment as the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus.
On the questions posed, the following issues were framed.
(1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Virender Singh respondent No. 1 while driving the bus bearing registration No. HNL 3336 during the course of employment of respondent No. 2 (a) 2(b), or due to contributory negligence of respondent No. 1 Jasbir Singh deceased while driving, Maruti Car being registration No. DBG-3336 during the course of employment of respondent No. 5 and insured with respondent No. 6? OPP.
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.
(3) Whether Jasbir Singh deceased was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident to fasten the liability of National Insurance Company respondent No.5? OPR.
(4) Whether the petitioners have any locus Standi to file the claim petition? OPP.
(5) Relief.
On a consideration of the matter, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. On issue No. 2 the court found that the claimants were entitled to claim a monthly dependency of Rs. 1200/- after making a deduction of l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and keeping that in mind and applying a multiplier of 24 a sum of Rs. 3,45,600/- was payable as compensation. The court also found that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was liable to be awarded to the mother, a sum of Rs. 3000/-each to the children and a sum of Rs. 19000/- on account of loss of consortium and in addition a sum of Rs. 3000 toward funeral excpenses etc. rounding up the entire compensation to Rs. 3,75,000/-.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, the multiplier of 24 could not be applied to the case under any circumstances. It has also been urged that even otherwise as the claimants were the mother and the minor brothers of the deceased of whom one was about 17 years of age, a deduction of 2/3rd ought to have been made from the total pay packet'' of the deceased and if at all the compensation could be determined at about Rs. 800/- per month and not Rs. 1200/- per month. It has finally been urged that the compensation granted on account of loss of consortium was liable to be paid only to a widow and not to a mother or brothers.
As against this, Mr. M..S. Gulani the counsel for the claimants has urged that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment the multiplier could not exceed 16, it Was not open to him to justify a multiplier of 24. He has nevertheless argued that the three brother of the deceased were very young and as the head of the family had died, the dependency determined at Rs. 1200/- per month was fully justified. He has also relied on a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kallidukkil Cheriyakutty Mammi and Others Vs. Thoniyadath Ummer Kutty and Others, in which it has been held that it was not necessary that the claimant should be a legal representative of the deceased but it should be shown that the claimant was in fact a dependent on the deceased.
Mr. Guglani has finally urged that in any case the mother would also be en-titled to the company of her son and the compensation for the loss of consortium was therefore in order.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal has to succeed in the light of the observations of the ''Supreme Court in the afore-quoted case. The multiplier of 24 cannot therefore be justified. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a Young man of 22 years and he had left behind a dependent family (his father having died), I am of the opinion that a multiplier of 16 would be proper. Mr. Suri''s argument that the dependency also ought to be decreased to Rs. 600/- per month is also not tenable in the light of the fact that the dependents whether they are legal heirs or not were entitled to the payment of compensation as held by the Kerala High Court in Cheriyabutty Mammi''s case (supra). I am, however, of the opinion that some reduction in the quantum of compensation with regard to loss of consortium is called for. This amount is accordingly reduced to Rs. 10,000/- on account of love and affection (and not consortium) and compensation is accordingly determined at Rs. 2,43,400/-. It is also clarified that the National Insurance Co. i.e. insurer of the car would not be liable, for the payment of the compensation as it has been found that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is further directed that the balance amount shall be shared between the claimants in the manner already indicated by the Tribunal and that the other directions of the Tribunal shall also remain in force. The appeal filed by the State of Haryana stands dismissed.