Smt. Menka and Others vs Dharampal and Others

Navita Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.5.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Narnaul, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,48,000/- was granted to the appellants.

The case of the appellants was that the deceased who was 24 years old had gone to village Akoda on 25.7.2006 in connection with his business and was returning at 10.00 PM by motor-cycle No. HR-34-9535. When he reached near village Palri Panihar, a pick up van (engine No. 10014 and chassis No. 10151) which was driven by respondent No. 1 Dharampal in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and steered towards the wrong side of the road and collided with the motor-cycle of the deceased. Narender Singh fell down and died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Rajbir, Gopi Chand and one Virender Singh son of Shiv Lal.

Respondent No. 3, who was the broker, contested the petition on the ground that it being not the insurer of the offending vehicle, was not in any way liable.

Respondent No. 4 i.e. Insurance Company filed a separate reply alleging that no accident involving the vehicle had taken place. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if the accident was proved, it occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The liability of the company was disputed and it was pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence. The petition was heard ex parte against the other respondents.

The following issues were settled by the tribunal:-

Whether Narender Singh son of Sh. Sanwal Singh died in a road accident which took place on 25.7.2006 Mohindergarh Dadri road, near village Palri Panihar (PS Mohindergarh) due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1, the driver of pick up van in question? OPP

Whether respondent No. 1 did not hold a valid driving licence, if so, to what effect? OPR-4

Whether petitioners are entitled to award of compensation and if so, how much and from whom? OPP

Relief.

In this court, the appellants have prayed only for enhancement. It was first of all argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal wrongly held that it was not possible to assess the income of the deceased and it was wrongly taken to be Rs. 3500/- per month. He stated that the deceased was a graduate and was holding a diploma in computers and mobile phones. He was running his own business and was self employee, earning Rs. 15000/- per month.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that even if the Tribunal was to hold the income of the deceased was not proved, he should at least have been taken to be a skilled labourer and not an ordinary one. It was further contended that compensation only on account of income was granted and nothing was awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the award was made in 2008 and at that time the income of the skilled labourer was Rs. 3500/- per month and as such the Tribunal rightly assessed the same.

It may be of importance to mention here that the record was burnt and copy of the paper book was taken from learned counsel for the appellants, who was equipped with the grounds of appeal and copy of award. Counsel for both the contesting parties did not have copy of any oral or documentary evidence. For that reason, with the consent of the counsel, the appeal was heard only on the basis of award and is to be decided accordingly without going into the evidence. Whatever evidence is discussed in the award, the same is to be taken on its face value.

There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was running any business. The Tribunal mentioned this fact but all the same said that the appellants had produced on record copy of mark sheet showing that the deceased was a graduate. Copies of his performance certificate had also been produced showing that he had acquired diploma in computer and mobile phones. However, the documents were not otherwise proved as per law. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated that an unskilled labourer was earning Rs. 2500/- per month at that time. In such event, the income of the deceased having been assessed at Rs. 3500/- per month does not call for any interference as the same was taken to be that of a skilled labourer. The argument is acceptable. The annual income of the deceased, therefore, was rightly calculated at Rs. 42,000/-. So far as the personal expenses are concerned, since there were three dependants on the deceased, deduction towards that to the tune of 1/4th would be sufficient. The income for the purpose of calculating compensation will be Rs. 31,500/-. Multiplier of 18 should have been applied. The amount of compensation relating to the income would, therefore, come to Rs. 5,67,000/-. Beside this, Rs. 1 lac is awarded as loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 1 lac towards loss of love and affection to all appellants cumulatively. Towards funeral expenses etc., another amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded. The total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 4,48,000/- to Rs. 7,92,000/- and the enhanced amount shall bear interest @ 12 per cent per annum.

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed as above.