Ram Parkash and Another vs Kanta Suri and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The accident here was between the car PUE 7300 proceeding towards Gohana and the truck HRA 3724 coming from the opposite direction. This happened on December 19, 1976, at about 11 a.m. Both Beli Ram, the driver of the car and Manmohan Suri, the owner thereof were killed while three other passengers in the car sustained injuries, they being Kanta Suri, the widow, Manoj Suri, the son and Bhupinder Suri, the brother of Manmohan Suri deceased.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident here had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The parents, widow and three minor children of Manmohan Suri deceased were awarded Rs. 73,440/- as compensation and besides this Kanta Suri and Bhupinder Suri were awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- each as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in this accident, while Manoj Suri was awarded Rs. 2,000/- on this account.

This order will I dispose of the four appeals filed against the award of compensation to the claimants as also the appeal filed by the claimants Kanta Suri and others and the other by Manoj Suri seeking enhanced compensation.

At the very outset, Mr. Lalit Mohan Suri, counsel for the claimants questioned the maintainability of the appeals filed against the award of compensation to Kanta Suri and Bhupinder Suri for the injuries suffered by them in this accident. This objection must indeed be sustained as it is clearly provided in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act that no appeal shall lie against any award of the Tribunal where the amount in dispute in appeal is less than Rs. 2,000/-. Both these appeals must thus be held to be not maintainable.

Passing on the case on merits, it must be observed that the carefully considered and well-reasoned finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence warrants no interference in appeal. The claimants in their evidence came forth with a consistent account of the accident, which was wholly in accord with the version as given in the claim application. According to the claimants, the truck coming from the opposite direction was being driven at a very fast speed when it came on to the wrong side of the road -i rid hit into the car. The impact was so great that its direction got reversed resulting in two arsons being killed and three others injured. PW 12 Kanta Suri and PW 13 Bhupinder Suri deposed to this occurrence. They were both travelling in the car at that time and the injuries that they had suffered in this accident amply bear out their presence there.

The truck driver and owner, no doubt, sought to blame the car driver for the accident but their evidence was rightly not relied upon by the Tribunal. The statement of RW 2 Harbans Singh, the truck driver, was obviously a self-serving one and so too was that of RW 3 Joginder Singh, who deposed that he was in the truck as conductor. The main stress was on the testimony of RW 1 Mir Singh, on whose statement the first information report relating to this accident had been recorded. Mir Singh supported the version of the truck driver and blamed the car driver for the accident. A reading of the first information report exhibit P. 3 recorded on the statement of this witness would show that what he deposed before the Tribunal was wholly contrary to what he stated before the police, the version in the first information report being similar to that of the claimants.

An important circumstance in this case is the direction of the car being reversed upon impact between the two vehicles. The written statement filed by the truck driver contained no explanation for this. When it came to giving evidence of it, however, both the truck driver and the conductor came forth with the version that there was an iron chain hanging from the plank of the truck on the road with an iron hook and it was with this that the car got entangled and dragged in the reverse direction. This cannot but be taken to be an after thought. What is more, the photographs exhibits P. 8 and P. 10 do not bear out this version. They do not show any such chain or hook.

The truck driver in an attempt to show that it was the car driver who had brought the car on to the wrong side of the road resulting in this accident, deposed that there were some cyclists going ahead of the car and the car driver was overtaking them when the accident occurred. This again is a story coming forth for the first time in court. There was no such mention in the written statement.

Considered in their totality, the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record amply justify the finding of negligence recorded against the truck driver.

Turning now to the matter relating to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, there is in the first instance the claim relating to the loss suffered on account of the death of Manmohan Suri deceased. The evidence on record shows that he was only 36 years of age when he died. Kanta Suri, his widow, was about 3 years younger. The deceased had left behind not only his widow, but also three minor children and his parents who were all dependent upon him. Manmohan Suri deceased was employed as Accountant in the Punjab Cooperative Bank, Jullunder, at a salary of Rs. 977/- per month. He was described by PW 9 Kailash Chander Soni, the Manager of the bank, as intelligent and hard-working with chances of advancement in his career with the bank.

The principles governing the assessment of compensation payable to dependents of the deceased in such cases are those as laid down by the Full Bench of this High Court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P &H), where it was observed that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the deceased and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependent will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. It was further observed that the suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of the years of the dependency of the various dependents, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependents due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of the remarriage of the widow, the coming up of the age of the dependents and their developing independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependents on account of the death of the person concerned.

Considered in this light in the context of the situation of the claimants and the deceased, 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied in this case and the loss to the claimants deserves to be taken at Rs. 750/- per month. This would work out to Rs. 1,44,000/-

Next to consider is the claim for compensation by Manoj Suri for the injuries suffered by him in this accident. Manoj Suri was 7 years old at that time. According to PW 4 Dr. Ajay Sobti, PW 5 Raj Kumar and PW 7 Dr. Krishan Lai, Manoj Suri suffered a fracture of his frontal bone and also of the shaft of the right femur. He was operated upon for the head injury and was hospitalised for ten days. According to his mother PW 12 Kanta Suri, he remained under treatment for 2-3 months. As regards his injuries, PW 4 Dr. Ajay Sobti also stated that there had been some angulations in the shaft of the femur after the reduction.

Considering the nature and extent of the injuries suffered, the pain and suffering likely-to have been caused to Manoj Suri on account of these injuries and the expenses that must have been incurred both with regard to his medical treatment as also special diet and other incidental expenses, the amount awarded is clearly inadequate and it deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.

The compensation payable to the claimants on account of the death of Manmohan Suri deceased is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,44,000/-. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 14,000/- shall be paid in equal shares to the parents of the deceased, Rs. 25,000/- each to the children and the balance to the widow of the deceased.

The compensation payable to Manoj Suri for the injuries sustained by him is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.

The compensation payable to the claimants shall be paid to them along with interest at the rats of 12 per cent per annum from the date of tie application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. The amount payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest. The truck driver, owner and the New India Assurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation awarded.

In the result, the four appeals filed by the truck driver and owner are hereby dismissed while the two appeals filed by the claimants are accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs in all these appeals. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- (one set only).