Sukhpal Singh vs Darshana Rani and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy in appeal here is with regard to the identity of the driver of the offending jeep.

Kharaiti Lal deceased was out walking with some friends after dinner when the jeep DLV 2183 came from behind and hit into him and thereby killed him at the spot. This happened on August 7, 1979, at about 10.30 p.m. near Malout.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant Sukhpal Singh was the driver of the jeep at the time of the accident and that it was owned by Respondent Ajaib Singh. Further, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused an account of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Sukhpal Singh. A sum of Rs. 63,400/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, they being the widow and two unmarried daughters of Kharaiti Lal deceased.

The finding of negligence recorded against the driver of the offending jeep has not been questioned in appeal. As mentioned earlier, the challenge is only with regard to the finding that it was the Appellant Sukhpal Singh who was driving the jeep when the accident occurred.

The case against Sukhpal Singh is found upon the testimony of PW 3 Ishwar Chander Aggarwal, an eye-witness to the occurrence, and RW 1 Ajaib Singh, the owner of the offending jeep. According to PW 2 Ishwar Chander Aggarwal, the jeep was being driven by Sukhpal Singh and he saw it hit into Kharaiti Lal and drag him to a distance of 8-9 yards. This jeep had come without head lights and without horn being blown. He further stated that after the accident, the driver left the jeep and ran away. Mr. CM. Sharma, counsel for the Appellant laid great stress upon the fact that in the first information report recorded on the statement of this witness, there was no mention of the name of Sukhpal Singh. He next adverted to the fact that this witness saw only the back of the driver and consequently sought to create a doubt in the testimony of Ishwar Chander Aggarwal regarding the identity of the driver of the jeep. In this behalf, he also adverted to his statement that no identification parade had been held with regard to Sukhpal Singh being the offending driver.

In dealing with the criticism levelled against the testimony of PW 3 Ishwar Chander Aggarwal. it deserves note that the accident occurred on a moonlit night and the driver of the jeep after leaving it had run away from a short distance from this witness. There is also no motive suggested for Ishwar Chander Aggarwal to have falsely implicated Sukhpal Singh as the culprit in this case.

The matter is clinched by the testimony of RW 1 Ajaib Singh, the jeep owner, who deposed that Sukhpal Singh admitted before him that the jeep had been seized by the police as it had met with an accident and a man was killed while he was driving it. The counsel for the Appellant could point to no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. This being so, no exception can be taken to the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was none else than the Appellant Sukhpal Singh.

The claimants on their part sought enhanced compensation. It has come in evidence that Kharaiti Lal deceased was 48 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his widow Darshana Rani, who was 45 years of age and their two daughters, one aged 21 and the other 18, who were both unmarried. According to PW 3 Ishwar Chander Aggarwal, Kharaiti Lal was employed as Foreman-cum-Supervisor in the Panipat Woollen Mills, Kharar, and his total emoluments were Rs. 728.50 per month. Considering the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H), 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied and the dependency deserves to be assessed at Rs. 7,500/- per annum. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac and twenty thousand).

The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,20,000/-, which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each shall be payable to the daughters of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The Appellant Sukhpal Singh and Respondent Ajaib Singh shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the claimants are accepted while this appeal is dismissed with costs Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/-.