Ram Bhaj vs Amrik Singh and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of FAOs 1215 to 1218 and 1132 and 1133 of 1997 which are directed against the same award dated 3.1.1997 of the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ambala.

In an unfortunate accident which took place on 2.11.1990 on Ambala-Jagadhari road between a tempo occupied by about 30 to 40 persons who were going to attend a religious function, and a Haryana Roadways Bus, eight persons died and many others sustained multiplier injuries. Twenty-eight separate claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by the dependents of the deceased and the injured for the injures sustained by them in the accident, claiming various amounts of compensation.

Ram Bhaj appellant in FAO 1215 of 1997 filed claim petition, MACT No. 46 of 1991, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the injuries suffered by him. Similarly, Nirmala Devi, Balwant Singh and Manju Bala appellants in F.A.O.s 1216, 1217 and 1218 of 1997 filed separate claim petitions, MACT Cases 50, 49 and 51 of 1991 respectively claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them. Another claim petition, MACT Case No. 39 of 1991 was filed by Megha Gupta and Shilpa Gupta, two minor daughters through their maternal grandfather, next friend and guardian ad-litem, Sadhu Ram claiming compensation for the deaths of their father Vinod Gupta and mother Anita as also for the injuries sustained by themselves in the said accident. As noticed above, all these six petitions were disposed of by the learned Tribunal by a single award alongwith many other claim petitions and various amounts as mentioned hereinafter were awarded as compensation.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed appeals as noticed above seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants in all the six appeals submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. Learned counsel submitted that it was a horrible accident in which many persons lost their life and many sustained serious injuries. They remained admitted in different hospitals and underwent long treatment besides suffering severe pain and even some of them were minor who remained under shock for quite some time. He thus submitted that the compensation deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and there is no scope for any enhancement.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award of the learned Tribunal. I deem it appropriate to take up the appeals of all the appellants one by one in order to avoid any confusion.

F.A.O. No. 1215 of 1991, Ram Bhaj v. Amrik Singh and Ors.:-

Appellant Ram Bhuj, a mason was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. He sustained multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and grievous injuries in the stomach. He remained admitted in the General Hospital, Chandigarh for about one and a half months and was operated upon for his legs. For stomach injuries he was referred to the P.G.I. Chandigarh and in all he remained admitted in hospitals for 72 days and remained under treatment for four months. He suffered 60% disability. Learned Tribunal on a consideration of the matter, awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to Ram Bhaj on three counts, namely, Rs. 20,000/- on account of treatment, Rs. 22,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 1,08,000/- on account of disability after assessing his loss of income due to disability at Rs. 600/- per month and applying a multiplier of 15. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding loss of income due to disability and the multiplier applied. How- ever, in my view, the compensation awarded on account of treatment and pain and suffering is on the lower side. The appellant who suffered multiple injures and had to remain admitted in two hospitals and had to be operated upon and had to suffer pain and agony, must have spent more amount on his treatment for which he may not have been able to produce documentary evidence. As noticed already, the appellant was only 38 years of age and he was to some extent deprived of enjoyment of his life besides suffering pain and agony. In the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- will be just and fair compensation on account of his treatment and Rs. 40,000/- for pain, physical and mental agony and enjoyment of life. The amount of compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 28,000/- on the aforesaid two counts. The appellants shall therefore, be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/- as against Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.

FAO 1216 of 1997 Nirmala Devi v. Amrik Singh etc:-

Appellant Nirmala Devi sustained injuries and suffered fractures of arm and ribs, an iron plate was inserted in her left arm. She remained admitted in the hospital for 27 days. She however, did not suffer any disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to Nirmala Devi collectively on account of her treatment, pain and suffering and loss of income during the period she remained under treatment. On a consideration of the matter, I do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation and in my view, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is quite just and fair. Appeal filed by her thus deserves to be dismissed.

F.A.O. No. 1217 of 1997, Balwant Singh v. Amrik Singh and Ors.:-

Appellant Balwant Singh who was 42 years of age was working as Senior Turner in Mount Shivalik Breveries Ltd. at the time of the accident. He suffered multiple injuries. He remained admitted in Ambala City Hospital for 12/13 days and after two months thereof, he suffered blockade in the urine track and was referred to PGI Chandigarh but the doctors in the PGI being on strike, he went to a Private Nursing Home in Panchkula where he was operated upon and thus remained admitted for one week. He suffered 30% disability due to fracture of pelvic bone and urethral injury. The injured produced documentary evidence on record in the shape of certificates evidencing that on the date of accident, his basic pay was Rs. 1365/- and he lost salary for 212 days i.e. from 3.11.1990 to 30.9.1991 and further lost wages for 21 days from 5.11.1993 to 25.11.1993 because of injuries and the treatment thereof. Learned Tribunal on a consideration of the matter, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of treatment, Rs. 54,000/- on account of loss of income due to disability and Rs. 15,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of income due to absence from duty. On a consideration of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that on account of treatment, Rs. 25,000/- and on account of pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of income due to absence from his job Rs. 20,000 will be just and fair compensation. The appellant therefore, shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 99,000/- as against Rs. 89,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.

F.A.O. No. 1218 of 1997, Manju Bala v. Amrik Singh etc.;-

Appellant Manju Bala aged 10/12 years of the date of accident, a daughter of another injured Balwant Singh suffered injuries and her leg was fractured. As per the statement of her father, Balwant Singh, Manju Bala remained admitted in hospital for five days and in all confined to bed for 40 days. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- collectively on account of treatment and pain and agony. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded to her is little on the lower side. In my view, she is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- on all counts, namely, treatment, pain, agony and enjoyment of life as against the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.

F.A.O. No. 1132 of 1997, Megha Gupta and Anr. v. Amrik Singh and Ors.:-

This is a case seeking compensation filed by two minor daughters through their guardian and next friend. For the deaths of their father and mother and for the injuries sustained by them. As per the evidence produced on the record in the shape of statement of Sadhu Ram grand maternal uncle of minors supported by the statements of other witnesses including medical evidence, Vinod Kumar father of the appellants was aged 31 years and working as Clerk in the Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh on the date of the accident. His salary as per the certificate Exhibit PW4/A produced in evidence was Rs. 2290/- at that time. Learned Tribunal applying a cut of 50% on account of the fact that his wife was also an earning member, assessed the dependency of the minors on their father at Rs. 1145 and applying a multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,19,840/- for his death. In the case of their mother, it came in evidence that she was about 30 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Assistant in the office of Telephone Department, Chandigarh. She at the relevant time was drawing a salary of Rs. 2043/- per month. In her case as well, learned Tribunal applied a cut of 50% and thus assessed the dependency of the appellants on their mother at Rs. 1020/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,840/- for her death. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal was not justified in assessing the dependency of the appellants on their father and mother at Rs. 1145/- and Rs. 1020/- respectively. In the normal course, a father being the head of the family does not spare any effort to bring up and take care of his children to the best of his capacity. But in the case of both, the father and the mother being earning members, the children are taken much more care by their parents, especially in the matter of their food, education, clothes and other amenities of life. Thus obviously rather more amount is contributed by the earning parents for the welfare of their children than in the case of Single earning hand. In my view the deceased couple must have been contributing a little more to their lone daughters. Thus in the facts and circumstances of this case, I assess the dependency of the appellants on their father at Rs. 1,300/- per month and on their mother at Rs. 1,200/- per month. Thus on calculation, the amount of compensation, after applying a multiplier of 16 as has been done by the Tribunal, would come to Rs. 2,49,600/- for the death of Vinod Gupta and Rs. 2,30,400/- for the death of Anita Gupta. The appellants shall therefore, be entitled to the above amounts on account of compensation for the death of their parents.

As far as the compensation to Megha Gupta and Shipla Gupta, the appellants for the injuries sustained by them is concerned, Megha Gupta remained in hospital for 24 days for treatment of her fractured legs, Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- on account of her treatment and pain and agony. Shipla Gupta another minor suffered fracture of both bones of right fore-arms. She was applied plaster of paris. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.. 25,000/- on account of her treatment and pain and suffering. On a consideration of the matter, I of the opinion that the compensation awarded to the appellants for the injuries suffered by them is quite just and fair and no interference is called for with the finding of the learned Tribunal in that behalf.

F.A.O. No. 1133 of 1997 Jagdish Kumar v. Amrik Singh and Ors., :-

This is again a case of death. Kiran Devi wife of Jagdish Kumar, one of the victims of the above accident was aged 40 years and employed as a teacher on the date of the accident. Claim petition was filed by her husband Jagdish Kumar and her five minor children, i.e. four daughters and one son. She was drawing a salary of Rs. 2303/- per month on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal applied a cut of 50% and thus assessed the dependency of the husband and five minor children on Kiran Devi at Rs. 1150/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,20,800/- as compensation for her death. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in applying a cut of 50%, which was apparently done having regard to the fact that appellant-husband himself was also an earning member of the family. In the case of the two spouses being employed and drawing reasonable salaries, it cannot be said that each one of them would contribute only 50% of his/her income to the family and remaining will be kept by him/her, especially where there is a large family of six members. Undisputedly, the deceased left behind her five children, all minor and the husband. For the purpose of applying cut to the income of the deceased, normally two minor children are taken one unit whereas one unit is taken for a major. Thus the members of the family of the deceased consisted of five units and after her death there remained four units. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the deceased might have been contributing only a half of her income. Thus having regard to the members of the family left behind by the deceased, I am of the opinion that she might have been contributing at least a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to her family. I thus assess the dependency of the appellant and his five children on the deceased Kiran Devi at Rs. 1500/- per month. The amount of compensation taking the dependency at Rs. 1500/-per month and applying a multiplier of 16 as was dbne by the Tribunal, would thus come to Rs. 2,88,000/- as against Rs. 2,20,800/-.

For what has been stated above, F.A.O. No. 1216 of 1997 preferred by Nirmala Devi is dismissed. The other five appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated above. The appellants shall be entitled to the amounts of compensation as enhanced herein, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till payment minus the amount, if any already received. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and in all other respects, it is maintained. No costs.