Allowed

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. v. Dhaninder Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Nov 2014FAO/1895/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order regarding a Lance Naik's death. The court set aside the lower court's finding on the accident's cause, ruled in favor of the claimants, and awarded increased compensation of Rs 6,72,668.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is set aside. An appeal is allowed. Total compensation of Rs. 6,72,668 is awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum. Appellants are entitled to 17% each; remaining 15% to aged parents

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Vs Dhaninder Singh & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� Date of decision: 10^th November, 2014

¶3

Jasbir Kaur and others

¶4

� Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dhaninder Singh and others

¶7

� Respondents

¶8

��

¶9

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

¶10

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sartaj S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Vishvajeet Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

�� 

¶16

This is a challenge to the Award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar dated 02.03.1996 pertaining to death of Kulbir Singh (deceased) a Lance Naik in the Indian Army aged around 31 years getting salary of �2,317 per month.

¶17

The challenge is on two counts, one on the findings pertaining to the manner of the accident and the other as to the consequential quantum of compensation.

¶18

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.01.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶19

¶20

��

¶21

Upon hearing Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for the claimant;appellants, Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate representing the owner;cum;driver i.e. respondent No.1 and Mr.Vishvajeet Bedi, Advocate for the insurer; respondent No.2 and perusing the records.

¶22

There is a clear stand of the eye witness Baldev Singh AW;5 that while he was travelling in a Punjab Roadways bus on 26.10.1993 around 2.30 p.m. from Amritsar to Batala he saw the accident taking place when a Maruti Van bearing registration No.DL; 4CA;5759 (sometimes denoted as DL;4CA;5749) (in short, ‘the offending vehicle’) hit the ill fated motorcycle bearing registration No.HNX;3784 which was being driven by Daljit Singh on which Kulbir Singh was sitting on the pillion. As has been urged, learned Tribunal has certainly fallen into an error by giving a very constricted interpretation to the evidence by holding that since this eye;witness is a relation and he did not remain at the hospital when injured were rushed there and rather had gone to inform the relations which fact has been denied by this witness and a suggestion has been put to him, certainly is a wrong appreciation and much of a lackadaisical approach. It is held by the Tribunal that Daljit Singh, who had lodged DDR, has not been examined by the claimants similarly is a wrong approach of the Tribunal together with the fact that no FIR was lodged pertaining to this accident, when it is settled law as has been laid down in !"#$%&��%'%�(��)%��%+�%,��&)-$.� 1994(106) PLR 82 and other catena of case laws that FIR is not a prerequisite in lodging a claim and more so, the evidence spelt out by RW;1 ASI Lakhwinder

¶23

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.01.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶24

¶25

��

¶26

Singh regarding lodging of report by Daljit Singh and submission of report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. does not affect the case of the claimants as it is the evidence led before the Tribunal which is to be gone into. Moreover, as has been there the stand of the respondent driver;cum;owner of the offending vehicle is the admission of the accident though claiming that the fault was of the motorcyclist which has rammed into their vehicle. However, driver of the offending vehicle has never bothered to step into the witness box to rebut the case of the claimants proven by the ocular version and the testimony of the witnesses AW;1 Joginder Kaur, AW;2 Randhir Singh along with the testimony of widow Jasbir Kaur as AW;3. Thus, in stead of drawing adverse presumption against the driver of the offending vehicle the learned Tribunal has taken it qua the motorcyclist. To the very query of the Court, neither Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate representing the owner;cum;driver i.e. respondent No.1 nor Mr.Vishvajeet Bedi, Advocate for the insurer;respondent No.2 could convince that apparently the DDR lodged allegedly by Daljit Singh by way of Ex.R1 appears to be a subsequent fabrication with an ulterior motive and to the mind of this Court which is strongly of the belief of connivance of Daljit Singh with the respondents and that is how as per the Indian system he has been kept away from the Court.

¶27

Cause of this death is well elicited by Dr.Gurmanjit Rai AW;4 who conducted the post;mortem by way of Ex.A2. Even the Tribunal while adjudicating on issue No.1 in para No.11 of the impugned Award is unsure of the interpretation of the evidence. Thus, this finding qua issue No.1 as to the manner of the accident certainly

¶28

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.01.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶29

¶30

��

¶31

is a wrong interpretation of the evidence and is based on mere surmises and conjectures, and thus needs to be set aside holding that the death of deceased Kulbir Singh was as a consequence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Maruti Van and is thus, decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

¶32

The deceased is a non;gazetted officer from the defence force. The inter;se relationship of the claimants and the deceased is well elicited on the basis of dependent identity card Ex.A1 as well as deposition of AW;2 Randhir Singh and that of the widow Jasbir Kaur AW;3. The post;mortem report depicts the age of the deceased to be 29 years and the salary certificate Ex.AW5/A proved through AW;2 Randhir Singh Head Clerk shows that the deceased was getting salary of �2,317 per month.

¶33

Keeping in view that the defence forces have been bestowed due to nature of their services subsidized items and that being a combatant his food is free and thus, no deduction on his own upkeep and maintenance needs to be made. Therefore, annual dependency of the claimants upon the deceased comes to �27,804/;. Keeping in view the proven age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 appears to be the most appropriate and therefore, compensation comes to �4,72,668. Widow of the deceased has lost her husband a life companion who has left behind four minor children, two daughters and two sons, and aged parents in itself picturises the pathetic state of the family and though not much is in evidence considering the societal obligation towards such victims it would sub;serve the ends of justice if compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, pain, funeral

¶34

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.01.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶35

¶36

��

¶37

expenses, loss of amenities and other conventional heads is awarded to the tune of �2.00 lacs. Thus, total compensation comes to �6,72,668.

¶38

Having regard to the ages of the claimants and their requirements in life, the requirements of children and the widow being on the higher side than the aged parents of the deceased, therefore, these claimant;appellants No.1 to 5 are entitled to 17% each of this compensation and the remaining 15% of the amount of compensation is given in equal shares to the aged parents of the deceased who are arrayed as proforma respondents No.6 and 7 in this appeal. Besides, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal till realization. Interim compensation paid, if any, shall be adjusted.

¶39

Since the offending vehicle, as per the cover note placed on record, at the time of accident was under insurance cover of respondent No.2;New India Assurance Company Ltd. thus, owner; cum;driver as well as the insurer are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶40

With these discussions, the impugned award is set aside and the instant appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

¶41

/��0� ��

¶42

��(-'1-$��2 �32�4�

¶43

��

¶44

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.01.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. v. Dhaninder Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. v. Dhaninder Singh & 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

State of Haryana Vs Ram Dulari

(O&M) Puran Singh Vs Chhato etc.

Mandeep Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Smt. Parkash and Others Vs Mushir Ahammad and Others

Gurnam Kaur Vs Major Singh etc.

Joga Singh Vs Baldev Singh @ Baldev Chand