Samitra Devi and another vs Girdhari Lal and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge in appeal here is to the award of Rs. 35,280/- as compensation to the mother, widow and children of Kishan Chand deceased and Rs. 50,409/- to the mother, widow and children of Lakhbir Singh deceased, who were both filed in an accident with a tractor trolley at Malout. This accident occurred at about 6.15 P. M. on September 19, 1932 near the turning of the old bus stand at Malout. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by Girdhari Lal while driving the tractor PBX-3208. Liability for the compensation awarded was fastened upon Girdhari Lalas also Ram Narain and Sham Sunder the owners of the tractor. The Insurance Compay was absolved from liability as Girdhari Lal who caused the accident did not hold a valid driving licence.

In appeal here, an attempt was, in the first instance made to question the identity of the offending tractor. Capital was sought to be made of the fact that in the claim application, the number of the offending tractor was given as PBS-3208, whereas the tractor in respect of which compensation has been awarded, was found by the Tribunal to be PBX-3208. On the face of it, this is but an attempt to take advantage of what was apparently a mere clerical error. It is pertinent to note that the tractor, after causing the accident was left at the spot and it was from there that it was recovered by the police and later taken to the police station where it was examined by the police mechanic. The Engine number and the Chasis number of the tractor as given in the report of the police mechanic, A.W. Manjit Singh is the same as that of the tractor PBX-3208, which admittedly belongs to Respondents Ram Narain and Sham Sunder. The error, on the part of the claimants in mentioning the number of the offending tractor, on the claim application as P3S-3208 instead of PBX-3208 is thus not a matter of any consequence. It would also be pertinent to note that no such point finds mention in the order of the Tribunal. It is apparent, therefore that it was for the first time in appeal that such a plea was thought out and sought to be raised.

Faced with this situation, Mr. L. M. Suri, counsel for the tractor-owners, sought to question their vicarious liability for the compensation awarded on the plea that it had not been established that Girdhari Lal was their employee or had driven the tractor either on the business of the tractor owners or even with their knowledge and consent. This is again a contention wholly devoid of merit. A reference to the evidence on record would show that the only witness examined against the claimants was R W. 1 Girdhari Lal, who denied that he was the driver of the tractor or that any accident had been caused by him while driving it. The falsity of this statement is amply brought out by the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidharbaha, as also his own admission in cross-examination that he had been challaned and convicted for causing the death of Kishan Singh and Lakhbir Singh by his rash and negligent driving of the tractor. It is significant to note that he made no mention nor did he care to explain how and in what circumstances he drove the tractor when the accident occurred. As for the tractor-owners themselves, namely; Ram Narain and Sham Sunder they no doubt raised the plea in their written statement that Girdhari Lal was not their driver, but neither of them came into the witness box to despose this effect or to explain how it came to be that Girdhari Lal drove their tractor and caused this accident. The law is well-settled as held in Smt. Lajwanti and Ors. v. Haryana State (1985) 88 P. L, R. 36. "There is a presumption, rebuttable no doubt, that a vehicle is driven on the master''s business and by his authorised agent or servant, and consequently the owner or master is vicariously liable for the negligence of such servant or agent committed in the course of his employment." This was a case where the bus driver and conductor had left the bus unattended at the bus-stand. While standing there, the bus was driven away by a stranger who caused an accident with it. It was held that the State the owner of the bus was vicariously liable for the accident. Applying this ratio to the present case, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Tiibunal rightly held Ram Narain and Sham Sunder-the owners of the offending tractor-to be vicariously liable for the compensation awarded.

The claimants, on their part, seek enhanced compensation. A reference to the record would show that Kishan Chand deceased was about 48 years of age at the time of his death. He was a revenue patwari and his total emoluments, at the time of his death, were little over Rs. 880/- per month. He died leaving behind his mother, his widow and three sons, who were all dependent upon him. Kishan Chand had another ten years'' service before attaining the age of superannuation. Considering the nature of the post held by the deceased and the work done by him, it is likely that even after retirement, he could have been gainfully employed for some more years though his emolument may not have been as much as those while in service. Taking, therefore, an over-all view of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979)81 P. L. R.1, ''16'' would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied and the dependency deserves to be assessed at around Rs. 6,000/- per annum. So computed, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 96,000/- which may be rounded of to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs One lac only). The compensation payable to the claimants in the case of Kishan Chand deceased is accordingly enhanced to this extent.

Turning now to the case of Lakhbir Singh deceased, evidence shows that he was about 34 years of age at the time of his death. He was an agriculturist owning 7 acres of land and he earned his livelihood by the cultivation thereof. This land has now no doubt come to the claimants, but there is indeed a loss suffered by them. This being the value of his labours and services in the cultivation and looking after the family. In the case of Lakhbir Singh too, the dependants left behind him are his mother, widow and three sons. In this case too, in keeping with the ratio of Lachhman Singh''s case (supra), ''16'' would be the appropriate multiplier and the dependency deserves to be assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per annum which would work out to Rs. 80,000/- (Rs, Eighty thousand only). The compensation payable to the claimants in this case is accordingly enhanced to this extent.

Out of the compensation awarded to the claimants in the case of Kishan Chand, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each shall be payable to the mother and sons of the deceased and the balance to his widow. Similarly, in the case of Lakhbir Singh deceased out of the compensation awarded Rs. 10,000/- each shall be payable to the mother and the sons of the deceased and the balance to his widow. 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 claimants shall be entitled to the compensation awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.

The liability for the compensation awarded shall be that of Girdhari Lal, Ram Narain and Sham Sunder.

In the result, the appeals filed by Ram Narain and others are hereby dismissed while those of the claimants are accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.