The State of Haryana and another vs Nek Pal and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby a sum of Rs. 79,800/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of one Net Ram.

The accident took place on 1st May, 1981. Net Ram, deceased was the owner of the truck which was being driven by one Om Parkash. Net Ram was at that time sleeping on the tools-box above the driver seat. When the truck reached Garhi Bolni Chowk, near village Kathuwas, at about 10.(sic)0 PM, a Haryana Roadways Bus No. HRC-6760, being driven by Randhawas rashly and negligently coming from the opposite direction struck against the truck. As a result of the impact, Net Ram was thrown off the truck and he received serious injuries, resulting in his death on the spot. The claimants pleaded that Net Ram was the sole bread-winner of the family and his net income was Rs. 1,000/- per month. He left behind a widow and ten children

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents, it was pleaded that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver instead of the careless or rash driving on the part of the bus driver Randhawa, Respondent No 1. It was further pleaded that Randhawa was not driving the bus while in the course of employment at the material time, and, therefore, the remaining Respondents did not incur any liability. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the automobile accident resulting in the death of Net Ram took place on account of reckless or negligent manner of driving or any other fault on the part of the bus driver Randhawa, Respondent No. 1 as alleged ? OPP

(2) Whether the deceased Net Ram had any contribution in the aforesaid accident; if so, to what extent and effect ? OPR.

(3) Whether the aforesaid Respondent No. 1 Randhawa was not driving the offending bus No. HRC-6760 during the discharge of his official duty under the employment and control of Respondents No. 2 and 8 ? OPR.

(4) Whether the petition is time barred ? OPR.

(5) Whether the petition is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and is insufficiently stamped ? OPR.

(6) Whether the Petitioners have locus standi ? OPR.

(7) Relief.

Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 were discussed together and it was held thereunder that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, and the deceased Net Ram had no contribution in the aforesaid accident; and Randhawa was driving the offending bus in the discharge of his official duties in the course of his employment and control of the State of Haryana. The petition was held to have been filed within time.

On the question of compensation, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/- p.m. Allowing l/3rd out of that on account of maintenance on himself, the net dependency was worked out to be Rs. 665/- p.m. which comes to Rs. 7,980/- annually. The deceased was found to be 38 years of age at the time of the accident, the suitable multiplier, according to the Tribunal, was ten and, thus, a sum of Rs. 79,800/- was determined as compensation. The Tribunal also allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the payment.

The State of Haryana has filed this appeal whereas cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. one lac.

No meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the Appellant-State to challenge the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The evidence led before the Tribunal has been discussed in detail and in view of that evidence, the learned Counsel for the Appellant was unable to point out any infirmity therein In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.

As regards the cross-objections, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was of 38 years at the time of the accident and left behind ten children out of whom eight were minor at the time of filing the claim petition, and that being so, the multiplier often was most inadequate. It was also argued that the interest should have been allowed at the rate of 12% instead of 6% p. a.

After hearing the learned Counsel an the crass-objections,, I do not find any merit therein. All these factors were duly considered by the Tribunal and it was observed that, keeping in view the facts of the case and all the imponderables, I consider that a suitable multiplier is ten." In these circumstances, no case has been made out as to be interfered with in this appeal However, as regards the interest it could not be disputed that the claimants were entitled to the interest @ 12% from the date of the petition. To that extent, the cross-objections are allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Consequently, the appeal fails and the cross-objections stand allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties will however, bear their own costs.