IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1865 of 2004. Date of Decision:
21. 8.2013. Shimla Devi and others .... Appellants Versus Ravijeet Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the insurance company. Mr. B.S. Mangat, Advocate, for respondent No.1 and 2. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This claimants' appeal is directed against the th judgment-cum-Award dated March 8 , 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”.), Chandigarh. th 2. The matrix of the case is that on November 30 , 2001 Mange Ram (deceased) aged about 38 years, a Head Constable in Police Department, Chadngiarh was travelling in gypsy bearing not CH-01-G1-6036. When he reached traffic light point, Sector 26, Chandigarh, a car bearing not HR-03-C-4272 came from the Grain Market, Sector 26 side driven at high speed and recklessly and negligently hit the gypsy. The car was being driven by Ravijeet Singh Dhillon. Mange Ram along with the gypsy was dragged by the car. He suffered multiple injuries. On his way to the Hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. FIR No.255 under Section 304-A etc. IPC was registered in Police Station Sector 26, Sanjay 2013.09.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No.1865 of 2004 (2) Chandigarh against driver of the car. The jeep was being driven by Jatinder Singh. It was official gypsy of the Police Department.
3. The appellant No.1 is wife of the deceased aged about 35 years, appellant No.2 to 4-A were the minot daughters, appellant No.5 mother was aged about 70 years and appellant No.6 father was aged 75 years at the time of death of the deceased. They jointly filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal alleging that rash and negligent driving of Ravijeet Singh caused death of Mange Ram and claimed compensation on account of his death. The car was owned by Gulbadan Kaur Dullat wife of Ravijeet Dhillon and was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited-respondent No.3.
4. A joint written-statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 admitting the factum of accident but they pleaded that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by Ravijeet Singh. The insurance company in its separate written statement alleged that the owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the insurance policy by not informing them about the accident. It was also pleaded that the owner should prove the fact that at the time of accident, the driver of the car was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The department of Police where the deceased was serving was arraigned as respondents No.4 to 8.
5. On contest, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondent No.1 by driving scooter not CH-08-5074 rashly and negligently caused the accident in question resulting in injuries to the claimant ?.OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation claimant is entitled, if so from whom ?.OPP 3.Whether the respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident ?.OPR Sanjay 2013.09.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No.1865 of 2004 (3) 4. Relief.
6. Issue Non.1 was decided in favour of the appellants holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of car by Ravijeet Dhillon. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12 lacs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Under issue No.3 it was held that the driver of the car was holding a valid driving licence. The driver, owner and insurer of the car were held liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation.
7. By filing the present appeal, the claimants seek enhancement of compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.
9. Firstly, a few admitted facts. Mange Ram was th th born on December 15 , 1963. He died on November 30 , 2001, that is, he was about 38 years old on the day of unfortunate death. He was serving as a Head Constable in Police Department, Chandigarh. His last drawn pay was Rs.9916/- vide salary certificate (Exhibit P-3). All these facts have been proved by Nirmal Singh (PW-2) Head Constable, Police Department, Chandigarh. The Tribunal held the salary of the deceased at Rs.9900/- per month. th After deducting 1/4 for his personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.7500/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and calculated the amount of dependency at Rs.11,70,000/. Besides, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for last rites.
10. Mange Ram died at the age of 38 years. He was in the service of Union Territory, Chandigarh and posted as a Constable. In the normal course, he would have continued in the service of Union Territory upto December 2021 the age of superannuation (at 58). As per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121.where the deceased Sanjay 2013.09.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No.1865 of 2004 (4) had a permanent job and was below 40 years, an addition of 50% of actual salary of the deceased is to be given towards future prospects. The deceased was 38 years old so, an addition of 50% to his actual salary is to be given for future prospects. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.9916+4958 = 14,874/-. As has been observed earlier, the family of the deceased comprised eight persons including himself so, as per the guidelines laid down in th Sarla Verma's case (supra), deduction of 1/5 for personal and living expenses of the deceased should have been made in this th, case. Deducting 1/5 the dependency comes to Rs.11900/-. For convenience, the figure is rounded off to Rs.12,000/-, that is, Rs.1,44,000/- per year. The deceased was 38 years old so, multiplier of 15 should have been applied instead of 13. Applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,44,000 x 15 = Rs.21,60,000/- to which this Court adds the usual amount for loss of consortium and loss to the estate by providing conventional sum of Rs.1 lac to the widow of the deceased. The amount of Rs.10,000/- already awarded for last rights remains unaltered.
11. Thus, amount of Rs.22,70,000/- would be fair, just and reasonable and is awarded to the claimants. The rate of interest paid by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. The interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be paid by the insurance company from the date of filing of claim application till the earlier amount was deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award.
12. The Award passed by the Tribunal dated March 8th, 2004 stands modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 21.8.2013. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE Refer to reporter : Yes Sanjay 2013.09.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court