Dismissed

(O&M)State of Punjab etc. v. Rano Devi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012FAO/1174/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing First Appeals under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the State against ETRO Tribunal awards granting compensation for deaths and injuries in a motor accident. The High Court rejected submissions that awarded amounts were excessive.

What did the court decide?

All appeals dismissed; copies of judgment sent to trial court for strict compliance.

(O&M)State of Punjab etc. Vs Rano Devi and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.1174 of 1995

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1174 of 1995 Date of decision 2.02.2012.

¶5

State of Punjab and another
......	Appellants.
versus
Shrimati Rano Devi and others ......	Respondents.
FAO No.1175 of 1995
State of Punjab and another
......	Appellants.
versus
Gurmit Singh alias Jarmez and others ......	Respondents.
FAO No.1176 of 1995
State of Punjab and another
......	Appellants.
versus
Smt.Kamlesh Devi and others ......	Respondents.
FAO No.1177 of 1995

¶6

FAO No.1174 of 1995

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...... Appellants.

¶10

versus

¶11

Smt. Bachni Devi and others

¶12

.. .... Respondents.

¶13

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶14

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Present : Mr. K.S.Sivia, AAG, Punjab for the appellants in all cases.

¶18

K.C.PURI. J.

¶19

By this common order, I intend to dispose FAO No.1174 of 1995 State of Punjab and another versus Shrimati Rano Devi and others State of Punjab and another ; FAO No.1175 of 1995 State of Punjab and another versus Gurmit Singh alias Jarmez and others ; State of Punjab and another ; FAO No.1176 of 1995 State of Punjab and another versus Smt.Kamlesh Devi and others ; and FAO No.1177 of 1995 State of Punjab and another versus Smt. Bachni Devi and

¶20

others. All the above said appeals arise out of the same award and accident. Therefore, for convenience facts are being taken from FAO

FAO No.1174 of 1995

No.1174 of 1995.

Briefly stated claimants have directed different claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of Mangat Ram alias Manga, Kishan Lal, Joginder Singh whereas Gurmeet alias Jarmez etc. received injuries in a motor vehicular accident.

¶25

It is alleged that on 7.2.1992 at about 8.00a.m. Mangat Ram alias Manga, Kishan Lal, Joginder Singh and Gurmeet alias Jarmez etc. were going in Maruti Car bearing registration No.JKU -6387 from Pathankot to Chandigarh and Gurmeet alias Jarmez was driving the said car at a normal speed on left side of the road. When the car reached near the main gate of D.C.M. Colony, Assro, at about 2.00p.m. One Punjab Roadways Bus of Tarn taran Depot bearing registration No.PB-12-A/9002 came from the opposite direction which was being driven by respondent No.3 Gopal Singh at a high speed rashly and negligently and he came on the wrong side of the road and hit the Maruti car and accident resulted in the death of Mangat Ram alias Manga, Kishan Lal, Joginder Masih and Gurmeet was injured in that accident. Constable Kundan Lal had reported the matter to the police and lodged FIR No.9 of 1992 against respondent No.3. The police had registered the case and got conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased. As a result, Bachni Devi etc. heirs and dependents of deceased Mangat Ram alias Mangu have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.18 lacs. Kamlesh Devi etc also filed claim petition claiming Rs.14 lacs regarding death of Joginder Masih

¶26

FAO No.1174 of 1995

¶27

¶28

and Rani Devi etc. have filed claim petition for Rs.19 lacs. Whereas injured Gurmit has filed separate claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs regarding his injuries rceived in the accident.

¶29

On put to notice respondent No.1 and 2 filed written statement and admitting the involvement of the vehicle in the accident but have taken the pleat that car driver was at fault for causing the accident. They have also taken up the plea that it was rainy day and the car had slipped and struck against the bus.

¶30

Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement and took the plea that the false case had been registered against him. He has also taken up the plea that car driver was trying to overtake the truck which was going towards Ropar and while over taking that truck, the car had struck against the bus. He had also taken up the plea that he was not at fault and the accident had taken place due to the fault of the car driver. Denying other averments, respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

¶31

Respondent No.5 has also filed separate written statement alleging that respondents No.1 to 3 are only liable to make the claim.

¶32

Respondent No.6 has also filed written statement denying the negligence of respondent No.4 and that car was not insured for the passengers and that car driver was not having driving licence.

¶33

The claimants have filed replications denying the contention raised by the respondents.

¶34

The parties have gone on trial on the following issues:-

¶35

Whether the accident in question resulting in the death of

¶36

FAO No.1174 of 1995

¶37

¶38

Mangat Ram alias Manga, Krishan Lal and Joginder Masih and injuries to Gurmeet was caused by rash and negligent driving of Punjab Roadways bus by respondent No.3 as alleged in the main petition? OPA.

¶39

Whether Bachni Devi etc. are the legal representatives of the deceased Mangat Ram alias Manga and are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? OPA.

¶40

Whether Rano Devi etc. claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Kishan Lal and are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? OPA.

¶41

Whether Smt. Kamlesh Devi etc. claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Joginder Masih and are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? OPA.

¶42

Whether respondent No.4 has no valid driving licence? If so its effect? OPR.

¶43

Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of car driver? OPR.

¶44

Relief.

¶45

The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid

¶46

issues.

¶47

The Tribunal after appraisal of the same, vide Award dated 4.10.1994 granted compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment of the amount. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment.

¶48

Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award dated 4.10.1994, the respondents State of Punjab etc have preferred present appeals against the said award for acceptance of the appeals and for dismissal of the claim petitions.

¶49

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone

¶50

FAO No.1174 of 1995

¶51

¶52

through the records of the case with his able assistance.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in issue No.2 the amount of compensation in respect of Mangat Ram has been considered. It is contended that Mangat Ram was aged 27 years. His income has not been assessed by the Tribunal. Multiplier of 16 has been ordered to be applied. However, without calculating the amount of compensation, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been ordered to pay to the legal representatives of Mangat Ram. The said amount is highly excessive. 15. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. 16. Even if the multiplier is applied in accordance with Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another RCR (Civil ) page 77 , the amount of compensation is not on higher side. In case we take the income of deceased Mangat Ram as Rs.3000/- per month, the age of Mangat Ram was 27 years. So, applying the cut of 1/3^rd the amount calculated in respect of dependency comes to Rs.2000/- per month. The yearly dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. The multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), in the age group of 26 to 30 years is 17. So, the multiplier applied the amount comes to Rs.4,08000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/-. So, that amount cannot be said to be excessive. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the amount of compensation in respect of death of Kishan Lal and Jagdish Masih amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- each is also on higher side.

¶54

I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find

¶55

FAO No.1174 of 1995

¶56

¶57

any force in that submission.

¶58

Kishan Lal was aged about 23/24 years and Jagdish Masih was aged 27 years. So, even if the income of Kishan Lal and Jagdish Masih is taken as Rs.2400/- per month and while applying the cut off 1/3^rd in that case also the amount of compensation cannot be said to be excessive. So, income is taken as Rs.2400/-, the dependency comes to Rs.1600/- by applying the cut of 1/3^rd share and the yearly dependency comes to Rs.19,200/-. So, in case the multiplier of 17 is applied in that case the amount of compensation is more than three lacs. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,00,000/- each. So, there is no scope for reducing the amount of compensation.

¶59

So far as the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- granted to Gurmit Singh claimant in respect of his injuries is concerned, that also not on higher side. As per evidence Gurmit Singh sustained injuries and 75% disability and in those circumstances., the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be said to be excessive.

¶60

Consequently all the appeals are without any merit and the same stand dismissed.

¶61

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

¶62

February 02, 2012 sv

(O&M)State of Punjab etc. v. Rano Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)State of Punjab etc. v. Rano Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijender and Others Vs Sajjan and Others

Satpal Singh Malhotra Vs Gulshan Kumar

Satpal Singh Malhotra Vs Gulshan Kumar

Bir Singh S/O Shri Nanga Vs Bir Singh S/O Bhule and Ors.

Ravi Parkash and Others Vs Hazari Lal and Another

(O&M) N I a C. Ltd. Vs Harvinder Singh Jaggi etc.