Smt. Prem Kaur vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—This F.A.O. has been filed by Smt. Prem Kaur (mother), Chint Singh (father), Miss Paramjit Kaur, Miss Amandeep Kaur

and Jaswant Kaur (sisters of deceased Tarlochan Singh) against the State of Haryana and others and has been directed against the award dated

11.1.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh which dismissed the claim petition of appellants No. 2 to 5 and allowed that of

Smt. Prem Kaur, appellant No. 1, and awarded a sum of Rs. 38,400/- by way of compensation on account of the death of Tarlochan Singh, aged

23 years, son of Smt. Prem Kaur.

The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants filed a claim petition against the respondents and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10

lacs on account of the death of Tarlochan Singh which took place in a vehicular accident on 23.8.1992. The case set up by the claimants in the trial

Court was that on the date of the accident at about 7.35 p.m. the deceased was driving his scooter bearing No. CH-01 -B-5010 on the road

dividing Sectors 18-21 from the side of cross- section of Sectors 18-21, 20-21 when bus No. HR-03-7728 driven by respondent No. 2 Ashok

Kumar in a negligent manner came at a very fast speed from behind and banged into the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and was

crushed to death. So much so the deceased was dragged upto a considerable distance. It is further alleged that the driver of the bus did not blow

any horn and sped away from the spot after the accident and whatever has happened it has happened on account of the negligence of respondent

No. 2. The appellants further alleged that the deceased was working as a contractor and was also doing other jobs including the job of

photographer. He used to prepare video films etc. for different studios and was earning about of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The appellants were

dependent upon the income of the deceased. With these broad allegations the appellants prayed that a sum of Rs. 10 lacs may be awarded to

them.

Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the

deceased himself was negligent at the time of accident and thus no compensation can be granted to the appellants. Moreover, the appellants were

not dependent upon the income of the deceased.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal for the disposal of the claim petition :-

Whether the accident in question was caused by respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar by driving his vehicle No. HR-03-7728 rashly and

negligently ? OPP

To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled and from whom ? OPP

Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of the trial, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of claimant

No. 1 and issue No. 2 was partly decided in her favour and against the respondents. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 38,400/- by way of

compensation to Smt. Prem Kaur, appellant No. 1 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the passing of the award till payment.

Not satisfied with the impugned award dated 11.1.1995 the present appeal on behalf of the claimants.

I have heard Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate on behalf of the appellants, Mr. A.K. Goyat, AAG, Haryana and with their assistance have gone

through the records of this case,

The learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset has not advanced any argument on behalf of appellants No. 2 to 5 but he submits that

he will confine this appeal and prayer to the case of Smt. Prem Kaur, appellant No. 1. He attacked the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 and

submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,400/-, besides interest @ 12% per an- num and

that too from the date of the passing of the award. Mr. Goel submitted that the deceased was a young boy of 23, which is proved on the record,

and that he was doing the work of photographer. He used to earn Rs. 30074007- per day. In support of his contention he referred to the

statement of PW3 Ashok Kumar, who deposed that Tirlochan Singh was working with him and he used to make video films. It has come in the

statement of PW3 that as and when the deceased was put on the job, he was earning Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per day. I am not in a position to

subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the cross-examination of PW2 Ashok Kumar, wherein he has

admitted that he was not maintaining any account books. It has further come in the cross- examination of this witness that he has not maintained

any record to show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per day when he was directed to prepare the video films. Also

there is nothing on the record to suggest that the deceased had passed any course of photographer. In the absence of any best evidence in this

regard, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the income of the deceased from

photography. Mr. Goel has also referred to the statement of PW4 Devinder Sethi, who made statement before the Tribunal that the deceased was

working with them on temporary basis and used to work as video maker. According to this witness, the average income from their job was Rs.

1,500/- per month. The statement of this witness has to be rejected for the same reasons for which I have rejected the statement of Ashok Kumar

PW3, because, it has come in his statement that he was not maintaining any record of his firm nor he has maintained any record allegedly showing

any payment to the deceased.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was a B-Class contractor and it has come in the statement of

Chint Singh, father of the deceased, that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by doing the contractor work and that he took the

contract in Punjab Drainage Headquarters and received a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as profit in the last contract. The counsel for the appellants also tried

to show that the deceased was running a stone crusher at Zirakpur from where he used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month in partnership with Labh

Singh. Yet my attention has been invited to the statement of AW5 Shashi Bhushan, Junior Engineer, who produced certificate Ex.AW571 showing

the deduction of income tax from the payment made to the deceased. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there

is no satisfactory evidence led by the appellants with regard to the income of the deceased.

I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants when he submitted that the deceased was earning from the business of

photography or that he was earning anything from the business of stone crushing. No documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants

that the deceased was do- ing these businesses. With regard to document Ex.AW5/l it stands proved that the deceased was a contractor and out

of the amount of Rs. 19,181/- a sum of Rs. 431/- was deducted by way of Income Tax. Ex.P2 further proves that the deceased was a B-Class

contractor for the execution of the works and necessary license was granted to him for the year 1991-92. I also cannot forget that the deceased

was a young boy of 23 years. He died at the age of prime youth. He was an able bodied person. Whatever his earning was, it must have been

shared by his other family members including mother, who was aged about 48 years at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal has applied a

multiplier of 16 years which, in my opinion, is on the lower side keeping in view the young age of the deceased. In my opinion, the multiplier should

be of 20 years to the annual income of the deceased of Rs. 2,400/-. Thus, I calculate Rs. 48,000/- as compensation to be paid to the appellant

No. 1 Smt. Prem Kaur. She is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- by way of consortium and funeral expenses, in all Rs.58,000/-. The amount of

compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition shall be payable to appellant No. 1 Smt. Prem

Kaur within three months from the receipt of the copy of the order.

Appeal stands partly allowed.

Appeal party allowed.