Dismissed

Joga Singh v. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2014FAO/1268/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Rs. 5,46,000 plus interest) to the mother of a deceased electrician. The court held that no evidence challenged the annual dependency figure and the Tribunal made an error in applying the multiplier.

What did the court decide?

Compensation award affirmed by the Tribunal; appeal dismissed.

Joga Singh Vs Pardeep Kumar & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.1268 of 2014(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1268 of 2014(O&M) Date of decision: 7.7.2014

¶5

Joga Singh

¶6

......Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pardeep Kumar and others

¶9

......Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

¶14

The respondent-claimants filed the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.39,00,000/- on account of death of one Sanjeev Kumar on 4.4.2013 in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant-Joga Singh. However, on the statement of counsel representing the claimants on 23.10.2013, claim petition qua respondents No.1, 3 and 4 was not pressed and therefore, the same was dismissed qua them.

¶15

It may further be noticed that as per the statement made in the Court on 8.8.2013 by the appellant-Joga Singh, he is also owner of the offending vehicle and the same was not insured. As per the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, the claim petition was not maintainable and the respondents were not entitled to any compensation as they were not dependent upon the deceased. He further pleaded that no accident took place with his truck. He denied other allegations and

¶16

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

FAO No.1268 of 2014(O&M)

¶18

¶19

prayed for dismissal of the claim application.

¶20

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

¶21

framed:

¶22

“1. Whether Sanjiv Kumar son of Pardeep Kumar has died in a road side accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP

¶23

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, from whom and to what amount? OPP.

¶24

3. Relief”.

¶25

On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant in which Sanjeev Kumar son of Pardeep Kumar had died. Since claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.10.2013 on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 and 4, Kulwinder Kaur-respondent No.2, who is mother of the deceased, is the only claimant in this case. Though in the written statement objection has been taken that claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and therefore, were not entitled to compensation yet no argument has been raised before the Tribunal as to how the claim petition was not maintainable on behalf of respondent No.2, mother of the deceased. Even before this Court no such argument has been raised.

¶26

It may further be noticed that Sanjeev Kumar deceased was a bachelor and 23 years of age at the time of his death. He was a trained electrician. The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.7000/- and his annual dependency was determined at Rs.42,000/- (i.e. Rs.3500 x 12) after

¶27

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

¶29

FAO No.1268 of 2014(O&M)

¶30

deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and thereafter, a multiplier of 13 was applied keeping in view the age of respondent No.2 i.e. mother of the deceased, holding that she was entitled to compensation of Rs.5,46,000/- and a sum of Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses. It was further observed that the claimant will also be entitled to interest @ 7% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle has not referred to any worthwhile evidence to challenge the annual dependency of the deceased determined by the Tribunal. Further it could not be disputed that a multiplier of 13 was not rightly applied.

¶32

Thus, there is nothing on record on the basis of which award

¶33

passed by the Tribunal can be assailed before this Court.

No merits.

Dismissed.

July 07, 2014 ps

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶38

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶39

FAO No.1268 of 2014(O&M)

¶40

¶41

CM No.4184-CII of 2014 in FAO No.1268 of 2014

¶42

Joga Singh Versus Pardeep Kumar and others

¶43

¶44

Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶45

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶46

July 07, 2014 ps

¶47

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶48

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Joga Singh v. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joga Singh v. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Comp Ltd. Vs Braham Parkash & Ors.

Jai Singh Vs Raj Bala and Ors.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Kanta Devi and Others

Jaipal Singh Dhull Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Ms Gursharan Kaur and Ors. Vs Ravinder Singh and Anr.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chameli & Ors.