Partly allowed

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. v. Sukhpal Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2014FAO/163/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court enhanced compensation from `4,75,000 to `10,53,000 based on deceased's adjusted income and adjusted multiplier as per Supreme Court precedents, and increased interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced to `10,53,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization.

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Sukhpal Singh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: August 21, 2014

¶6

Paramjit Kaur and others

¶7

…Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sukhpal Singh and another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶12

Present: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶16

Present appeal has been filed by the widow, three minor children and parents of Kulwinder Singh (since deceased), challenging the award dated 2.5.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby an award of `4,75,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization was passed in favour of the appellants.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that on 26.8.2005, Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) along with Joginder Singh, Deepa Ram and Piara Ram was coming to Sirhind from their

¶18

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶19

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

village. Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) was driving motorcycle, bearing Registration No. PB-48-B-4094, on which Joginder Singh was the pillion while Piara Ram was driving scooter, bearing Registration No. PB-23-A-1697, on which Deepa Ram was the pillion. At about 1:10 p.m., both the two-wheelers reached near railway over-bridge at bye-pass of Sirhind. In the meantime, the offending vehicle Tata-407, bearing Temporary Registration No. PB-11-S-(T)-5848, being driven by respondent No. 1-Sukhpal Singh in a rash or negligent manner and at a very high speed, came on the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle driven by Kulwinder Singh (since deceased). Both the riders of the motorcycle, i.e. Kulwinder Singh and Joginder Singh, received serious injuries. The motorcycle was also badly damaged. Respondent No. 1 ran away after leaving the offending vehicle on the spot. Piara Ram and Deepa Ram arranged for a private vehicle and carried Kulwinder Singh and Joginder Singh to the Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. However, Kulwinder Singh succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The matter was reported to the police and on the statement of Piara Singh, FIR No. 249, dated 26.8.2005, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 338, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶22

The widow, three minor children and the parents of Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) presented the claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that Kulwinder Singh was 29

¶23

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶24

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

years old; was dealing in the business of iron scrap; was also doing dairy farming; and that from both the said jobs, he was earning 10,000/- per month. Kulwinder Singh was stated to be the only breadwinner of the family and after his death, there was no source of income with the appellants/claimants. The appellants/claimants claimed 20,00,000/- on account of the death of Kulwinder Singh and `30,000/- on account of total damage of the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. PB-48-B4094, owned by Kulwinder Singh (since deceased).

¶27

Respondent No. 1 while filing the written statement denied the fact that the accident had occurred due to his rash or negligent driving and it was further averred that in case it was found that the accident had occurred with the offending vehicle, in that eventuality, the liability be fastened on respondent No. 2, which was the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶28

In its separate written statement, respondent No. 2- insurance company alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident, and on merits, it was pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of Kulwinder Singh (since deceased). The other averments in the claim petition were denied by respondent No. 2.

¶29

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues

¶30

were framed:-

¶31

“1. Whether Kulwinder Singh died in an accident

¶32

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶33

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

which had taken place on 26.8.2005 near Bala Rice Mills, Railway Over Bridge, Bye Pass Road, Sirhind due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Tempo 407 No. PB-11-S-(T) 5848 by respondent No. 1? OPP

¶36

Whether respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR2

¶37

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

¶38

Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

¶39

Relief?”

¶40

In order to prove her case, Paramjit Kaur, widow of Kulwinder Singh, appeared as PW1 and reiterated the facts as enumerated in the claim petition. She also examined PW2 Joginder Singh, an eye-witness of the occurrence, and CW-3 Biru Ram and thereafter closed the claimants’ case by tendering certain documents into evidence.

¶41

The respondents did not lead any oral evidence, however, they tendered certain documents and closed their case. 9. While placing reliance on the deposition of PW2 Joginder Singh, the learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. Since the present appeal has been filed by the claimants with regard to enhancement of compensation only, and the driver and owner, i.e. respondent No.

¶42

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶43

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶44

¶45

1, and the insurance company of the offending vehicle, have not challenged the verdict of the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No. 1, therefore, this Court also holds that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 1.

¶46

So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) was earning 10,000/- per month from the scrap business and dairy farming, yet the learned Tribunal has taken his income as 4,000/- per month, still 1/3rd was deducted from the said amount of `4,000/- and while applying the multiplier of 15, awarded a very meager amount. The learned Tribunal failed to award appropriate funeral expenses and amount under the head 'consortium'. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 .

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly conceded that they do not have any objection if the monthly income of Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) is assessed as `4,000/- per month and then the amount of award is calculated as per the Full Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh and others (supra) . However, they submit that the said Full Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been referred to a larger Bench for consideration. On a

¶48

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶49

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶50

¶51

specific query, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded that the larger Bench has not stayed the ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of Rajesh and others (supra) .

¶52

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶53

By taking it to be correct as held by the learned Tribunal that Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) was earning 4,000/- per month and keeping in view the age of Kulwinder Singh, 50% has to be added as future prospects, then his monthly income comes to 6,000/-. Since there are six claimants, therefore, 1/4th of the total income can be deducted for his (Kulwinder Singh) personal expenses and thereafter the dependency of the claimants comes to 4,500/- per month. As per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) , multiplier of 17 shall have to be applied. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to 9,18,000/- (4500 x 12 x 17 = 9,18,000/-). In addition to this, an amount of 1,00,000/- is awarded under the head 'consortium' and 25,000/- under the head of 'funeral charges'. The amount of `10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of damage to the motorcycle owned by Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) shall remain the same. 14. In view of above, the revised amount of compensation is computed as under:-

¶54

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶55

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶56

¶57

Sr. No.	Heads	% or fraction or multi- plier	Detail of calculation	Amount (in `)
(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)
1	Basic Income		Per month	4000
2	Future prospects	50%	of basic income	2000
3	Total of (1) & (2)			6000
4	Personal ex- penses of the deceased	1/4	of basic income + Future prospects	1500
5	Net depen- dency		3E - 4E	4500
6	Multiplier ap- plied	17
7	Compensation after applying the multiplier		5E X 12 X 6C	918000
8	Loss of consor- tium			100000
9	Funeral ex- penses			25000
10	Any other ex- penses to be specified		On account of damage to the motorcycle owned by the deceased	10000
	Total Compen- sation awarded			1053000

¶58

The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest @ 6% per annum which appears to be on the lower side. The appropriate rate of interest should be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

¶59

As a sequel to the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants are entitled to `10,53,000/along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. If respondent No. 2-insurance company

¶60

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶61

FAO-163-2009 (O&M)

¶62

¶63

has already deposited the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the said amount shall be deducted from the amount awarded by this Court.

¶64

Appellant Nos. 5 and 6, who are the parents of Kulwinder Singh (since deceased) would get `1,00,000/- each while the remaining amount shall be disbursed in equal shares amongst the widow and the minor children. The share of the minor children shall be deposited in a nationalized bank fetching maximum rate of interest and they would be entitled to encash the same after attaining the age of majority. However, if the widow of Kulwinder Singh moves an application before the learned Tribunal, then the interest to be accrued on the share of the minor children can be ordered to be disbursed to her for meeting their day-to-day expenses.

¶65

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶66

August 21, 2014 Pkapoor

¶67

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. v. Sukhpal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. v. Sukhpal Singh and Another

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

Baseshar Vs Gram Panchayat

Dharam Singh Vs Bed Kaur and Others

Jatinder Singh @ Jinder Vs State of Punjab

Mansa Ram Vs Vipin Pal @ Bittu and Others

Judge Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhbir Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab