Vikramjit Singh and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Pritam Pal, J.—This appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Petition No. 51 of 1991/1992, on December 09,1993, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, has been filed by Vikramjit Singh and Jatinderpal Singh, sons, Mahinderpal Kaur, daughter and Amrik Singh, husband, of Joginder Kaur, since deceased. In nut-shell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal, may be recapitulated thus:

On May 12,1991, at about 4.00 p.m., Amrik Singh alongwith his wife Joginder Kaur (since deceased),was returning on a scooter bearing registration No. PAA-1259 after attending a marriage of his niece and he was being followed by his brother-in-law, namely Inderjit Singh, on a moped. When they reached near crossing of Jahazgarh, an Air Force Truck bearing No. 80-D 345-A, being driven by respondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind. While overtaking, the said truck had struck against the scooter of Amrik Singh, who sustained injuries, whereas his wife had died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. FIR in this case was lodged against respondent No. 2 immediately thereafter on the same day at 5.55. p.m. On the other hand, the respondents denied the occurrence of the accident in the manner as alleged by the appellants and further submitted that in fact, Amrik Singh, who was driving the scooter was under the influence of liquor and as such, he had lost control over the scooter and that no such accident had ever occurred.

The learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as'' the Tribunal''), on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues on November 19,1992:

Whether Joginder Kaur w/o Amrik Singh died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of truck Nos. 80 D 345-A belonging to respondent No. 1, by respondent No. 2 ? OPA

Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount ? OPA

Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR

Relief.

After recording the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, respondent No. 2. was found to have caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In a Claim Petition bearing No. 51 of 1991/1992, while awarding the compensation to the appellants on account of death of Smt. Joginder Kaur, in para 16 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, observed as under:

Smt. Joginder Kaur would have continued to draw her salary for a period of 6 years. Her income has been assessed at Rs. 3600/- per month and out of this, she had been spending money for her own maintenance and as such, dependency is taken at Rs. 2000/- p.m. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- and the amount of dependency for a period of six years comes to Rs. 1,44,000/-. After the expiry of six years, Joginder Kaur would have retired and as such the dependency is taken only @ Rs. 500/- per month. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 6000/- and the amount for the remaining four years comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,68,000/- to which amount the claimants are entitled. The learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the applicants are also entitled to compensation for the suffering for loss of love etc, but I am of the opinion that no compensation can be allowed for the same.

Ultimately, a compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- was awarded to the appellants on account of the death of Smt. Joginder Kaur. Further, on the said amount, interest was also awarded @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till date of realisation. This is how feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the appellants have come up in this appeal and claimed further enhancement of compensation.

The only noticeable point of argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of funeral expenses and love and affection/ loss of consortium. He has also argued that the annual dependency of the appellants upon the deceased as well as the multiplier thereon are also on lesser side.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has refuted the aforesaid point of argument raised on behalf of the appellants and at the same time, it was also argued that in fact, the accident in question had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the appellants. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is pertinent to mention here that since the respondents have not filed any appeal against the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, therefore, I find no force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents pertaining to Issue No. 1 which relates to the occurrence of the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 2. Further, a perusal of the evidence brought on the record indicates that one of the appellants, namely Amrik Singh, who is husband of the deceased, was drawing a salary of Rs. 4500/- per month being a Lecturer in Senior Secondary School, at Ajnala. Other appellant, namely Vikramjit Singh was employed as Commissioned Officer in the Army, whereas other two claimants were studying in M.A. Class. All this goes a long away to show that their dependency must have come to an end after six years of the accident.

In the given facts and circumstances of this appeal, I find nothing wrong in the annual dependency as assessed and the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal. However, no reason has been given by the learned Tribunal as to why compensation on account of funeral expenses and love and affection or loss of consortium, was not awarded. On both these counts, I feel that the appellants were also entitled to a compensation of Rs. 14,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 4000/- for funeral expenses). Hence, a compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, is further enhanced by Rs. 14,000/- which would come to Rs. 1,82,000/-. On this enhanced amount of compensation also, the appellants would be entitled to get interest in the same terms as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.