Savinder Kaur and Others vs Harcharan Singh and Others

B. Rai, J.—The present appellants filed an application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rupees six lacs. On contest, that application was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, MACT), Amritsar, vide his judgment, dated January 5, 1995. An amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- was awarded. It was ordered that the amount of award shall be paid within two months from the date of order, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation and the respondents were held liable to pay Rs. 500/- as councel''s fee. The Driver and Owner of the vehicle were held jointly and severally liable.

Feeling aggrieved, the Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle have filed FAO 1923 of 1996 which has been separately decided vide my judgment, dated March 5, 1997, while the claimants except Naranjan Kaur who has since died, have filed this F.A.O., for enhancement of compensation.

Brief facts of the case are that on April 21, 1991, Roor Singh aged about 42 years was going to Tarn Taran from Amritsar after making purchases of domestic articles. He was sitting on the pillion seat of Scooter No. PB-02-B 1734 driven by Harijinder Singh. They were going at a very slow speed on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Mall Mandi a bus bearing No. PAB 1897 came from the opposite side driven by its Drivcr in a very rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter, as a result Roor Singh fell down from the scooter and the wheels of the bus passed over Roor Singh who died at the spot. It was pleaded that Roor Singh was the only bread earner of the family. The claimants are the legal representatives and dependents of Roor Singh deceased. He was a skilled tailor-master having good demand in the market and was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month. He had bright prospects in life. It was pleaded that Roor Singh was hardly 40 years of age. There was a long span of life in the family of the deceased. His mother and father were alive and aged about 70 years. Even the grandmother of the deceased is alive and is aged about 95 years. On these premises, they claim an amount of Rupees Six Lacs as compensation.

Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. They pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not known by the name of Baljit Singh which appears in the First Information Report in respect of the alleged accident. He had nothing to do with Bus No. PAB 1897. Taking place of accident was denied. It was also denied that respondent No. 1 was driving Bus No. PAB 1897 rashly and negligently. The application against him was not maintainable. Respondent No. 2 adopted the pleas taken by respondent No. 1 and further pleaded that he is neither Owner nor Driver of the said bus. He has been wrongly knpleaded as a party to the petition and that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation against him and the application deserved to be dismissed.

Respondent No. 3, that is, New India Assurance Company also filed a separate written statement. It was; pleaded that the applicants are neither dependents nor legal representatives of Roor Singh deceased. They have no right to file the present petition as third party. Respondent No. 3 also took up the plea that no accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the vehicle which stands insured with the answering respondent. It was also pleaded that the alleged driver was not having any valid Driving Licence at the relevant time. Even otherwise, respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of the insurance policy as well as in view of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The age of the deceased was not admitted to be 40 years. It was also not admitted that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. All the allegations were refuted.

Replication was also filed and on the pleadings of the parties, as many as six Issues were framed.

It is necessary to mention here that in F.A.O. No. 1923 of 1996, it was conceded by the learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company that on verification, the Driving Licence held by the Driver of the offending Bus No. PAB 1897 was found to be valid. That bus was insured with the Assurance Company. Therefore, Driver and Owner were absolved of their liability, vide order of this Court, dated March 5, 1997. Therefore, finding on Issue No. 4 was affirmed. Finding on Issues 1, 2 and 5 were not disputed. The parties are contesting findings on Issue No. 3 only, which reads as under :

"3. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, how much amount and from whom? OPA "

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the evidence of Dalbir Singh (AW1) and Savinder Kaur (AW5), it is clearly proved that income of the deceased was Rs. 100/150 per day. There is no rebuttal to that evidence, but that evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned MACT. According to the learned counsel, the multiplier of 18 to 20 was the proper multiplier to be applied, but the learned MACT applied the multiplier of 16 only which in the facts and circumstances of the case is on the lower side.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company has argued that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to show that Roor Singh deceased was a competent and known tailor-master and was very much demanded in the market. No particulars of the shop he may be running have been brought in evidence. It is also not proved that he was having his own shop or was working in some rented shop. There is no evidence to show that Roor Singh was earning even Rs. 100/- per day. Anyhow the Tribunal has awarded the just compensation. According to him, no sufficient grounds are made out to enhance the compensation amount.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the record. It is not disputed that Bus No. PAB 1897 belonged to respondent No. 2. It is proved on the record that on April 21, 1991, respondent No. 1 was driving the Bus bearing No. PAB 1897 and was going from Amritsar to Taran Taran. It is proved from the evidence of Dalbir Singh (AW1) that Harjinder Singh (AW4) was driving the scooter, on the pillion seat of which Roor Singh (deceased) was sitting. When the bus driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn reached in the area of Mall Mandi, Taran Taran, it struck against the scooter driven by Harjinder Singh (AW4), as a result Roor Singh fell down and he was crushed under the wheels of the bus. It is also in the evidence of AW1 and AW4 that scooter No. PB-02-B 1734 was being driven at a normal speed on the correct side of the road. Dalbir Singh (AW1) and his nephew Harjit Singh were going on a Scooter No. PBE 2236 and were following the scooter driven by Harjinder Singh (AW4). AW1 and AW4 have given a detailed account of the circumstances in which the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PAB 1897 by respondent No. 1. They were not Cross-examined on that aspect. Therefore, their evidence has gone un-rebutted. Their version is further supported by the contents of First Information Report Exhibit PW3/A lodged by Dalbir Singh in which Bus Number and the name of the Driver as Baljit Singh alias Bali, are mentioned. The version of the accident put forth by AW1 and AW4 is further corroborated by the evidence of Dharam Pal, Inspector, CID Unit (AW3) who investigated the case in respect of First Information Report No. 61, dated April 21, 1991, registered at the instance of Dalbir Singh complainant Under Sections 304A/279/338, Indian Penal Code, in Police Station City Taran Taran, who stated that the Bus bearing No. PAB 1897 was taken into possession by him and as per investigation, it was found that the Driven of the bijs was Harcharan Singh alias Baljit Singh alias Bali. According to Dharam Pal, Inspector, Driver of the bus, namely, Harcharan Singh alias Baljit Singh alias Bali son of Gurdial Singh was produced before him by Kuldip Singh son of Ajaib Singh and he was released on bail. His complete address was given in the surety bond. Dharam Pal is a public officer. There is nothing to show that Dalbir Singh (AW1) and Harjinder Singh (AW4) were in any way inimical to respondent No. 1 or that they were interested party. In the post-mortem report, it was also mentioned by the Doctor conducting the autopsy on the dead body of Roor Singh that the injuries suffered by the deceased were the result of motor vehicle accident. I am of the view that the learned MACT has rightry arrived at the conclusion that Roor Singh alias Aroor Singh died on April 21, 1991 in the accident with Bus No. PAB 1897, in the area of Mall Mandi, Taran Taran, driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. It is not disputed that the appellants are legal representatives and dependants of deceased Roor Singh and they are entitled to claim compensation. Savinder Kaur is the widow of Roor Singh. It was stated by her that Roor Singh was 42 years old, and was having good health. He was doing embroidery work in a shop which was on rent and he used to give her Rs. 150/- daily for running the household. Harjinder Singh (AW4) also stated that Roor Singh was doing embroidery work but according to him, he used to, earn Rs. 100/- per day. There is no evidence to show that Roor Singh was having any shop on rent and he was doing embroidery work in that shop. As noticed above, no documentary evidence has been lead to show that Roor Singh was having a shop on rent. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there is no cogent or convincing evidence to prove that the deceased was running embroidery shop. Therefore, he could be taken as a manual labourer and the MACT has rightly done so. These days, a labourer is not available for less that Rs. 50/- per day. However, it may be noticed that the labourer may not be getting the work throughout the month. He may be off the work due to certain other reasons for some days in a month. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly, rather little on the higher side has assessed his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month. In this way, he must be earning Rs. 18,000/- per annum. In the post-mortem report, the age of Roor Singh at the time of death has been mentioned as 42 years, while according to Savinder Kaur his widow, he was 42 years old. Therefore, at the time of death, age of Roor Singh was between 40 to 45 years. Therefore, as per Second Schedule, multiplier of 15 was to be applied, whereas the MACT relying upon Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. (1979)81 P.L.R. 1, applied the multiplier of 16. It appears that the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not taken note of by the learned MACT. Taking the annual income of Roor Singh deceased at Rs. 18,000/- applying the multiplier of 15, total compensation comes to Rs. 2,52,000/- as per Second Schedule, out of which one-third is to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,68,000/-, while the MACT has awarded Rs. 1,44,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 24,000/- as compensation in addition to the already awarded by the Tribunal. This amount is ordered to be apportioned between the claimants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal.

While dealing with the Driving Licence of the Driver of the offending bus, it was found to be valid and in order in all respects. Therefore, the Assurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In F.A.O. No. 1923 of 1996, the appellants had deposited Rs. 25,000/- and the said amount has been disbursed to the claimants. Vide my judgment, dated March 5, 1997, the In Assurance Company has been ordered to refund the amount to the appellants in that appeal. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to adjust that amount of Rs. 25,000/- while making the payment of the amount of compensation. The other conditions imposed by the MACT shall remain intact.

The appeal is allowed to the extent, indicated above.