IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) Karan Jain and another .....Appellants Versus Raju Singh and others ......Respondents AND FAO No.395 of 2011 (O&M) Karan Jain and another .....Appellants Versus Raju Singh and others ......Respondents Date of Decision :
22. 8.2013 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vinot Gupta, Advocate for respondent – Insurance Company. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.394 and 395 of 2011 arising out of Award dated August 06, 2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short `the Tribunal').
2. Both the appeals have been filed by the minot children of Narinder Jain and Shashi Jain.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on October 27, 2005, Narinder Jain and his wife Shashi Jain were going on their scooter bearing not PB-70-5544. At about 3.15 pm, when they reached near village Lohgarh, a truck bearing not HP-07-4288 came at a high speed, FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) [2]. being driven in a rash and negligent manner, by Raju Singh and hit the scooter. The couple suffered multiple injuries. Shashi Jain died on the spot and Narinder Jain died on January 29, 2006.
4. FIR No.298 dated October 27, 2005 (Exhibit C-1) under Sections 304-A, etc. IPC was registered in Police Station Dera Bassi against Raju Singh. Post mortem examination (Exhibit C-8) was conducted on the dead body of Shashi Jain.
5. Karan Jain and Reetika Jain, age”
1. 2 an”
1. 2 years, respectively, children of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal. It was pleaded that Narinder Jain was running a shop of audio/video cassettes and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He remained admitted in City Medical Consultants, Panchkula from 27.10.2005 to 15.1.2006 and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was spent on his treatment. His wife Shashi Jain used to help him in running the shop.
6. The driver and owner of the truck in their separate written statements denied the factum of the accident. The insurer in its written statement alleged that the accident did not occur with the truck, as alleged. The vehicle owner has violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy by not informing the insurer about the accident and that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license.
7. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed separately in both the claim applications, but instead of repeating, the same are being reproduced from Claim Application No.131 dated January 10, 2008 (FAO-394-2011) as under:-
“1. Whether Raju Singh son of Vir Singh was rashly and negligently driving the truck not HP-07-4288 on a public highway and caused accident, wherein, father of the claimants expired?. OPA 2.Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, as prayed for?. OPA FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) [3].
3. Whether the claimants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands?.OPR 4.Whether claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?.OPR 5.Whether driver of truck not HP-07-4288 was not having valid and effective driving licence and was without route permit?. OPR 6.Whether claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Insurance company of Scooter not PB- 70-5544?.OPR 7.Relief.”
8. The same issues were also framed in another Claim Application bearing No.132 dated January 10, 2008.
9. The first issue was answered by the Tribunal affirmatively holding that driver of the truck by his reckless and negligent driving caused the accident, which resulted into the death of Shashi Jain and injuries to Narinder Jain.
10. Under issue No.2 with regard to the death of Narinder Jain, it was held by the Tribunal that the claimants failed to prove that Narinder Jain died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident and awarded compensation amount of Rs.40,000/-.
11. The other issues, that is, No.3,4 and 6 were decided against the respondents and under issue No.5, it was held that the driver of the truck was holding a valid and effective driving license.
12. In case of death of Shashi Jain, it was held that she was 38 years old as mentioned in the report of post mortem examination (Exhibit C-8). She was a house-wife. Her notional income was assessed at Rs.1500/- per month, that is, Rs.18000/- per annum and multiplier of 15 was applied and loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.270000(18000x15). Besides, a sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded towards `funeral expenses'. In all, compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- was FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) [4]. awarded.
13. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation in both the cases. In Case of death of Narinder Jain:
14. Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that he died on January 29, 2006 due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident on October 27, 2005, so, the Tribunal fell in error in not awarding compensation although he died due to the accidental injuries. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the statement of Dr.Ramesh Gupta (CW2).
15. The accident took place on October 27, 2005 and Narinder Jain expired on January 29, 2006, that is, after 3 months and 2 days of the accident. The post mortem examiation on the dead body of Narinder Jain was not conducted. The testimony of Dr.Ramesh Gupta (CW2), which has been cited to prove that Narinder Jain died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, is not the clinching evidence. Dr.Ramesh Gupta has stated that on October 27, 2005 at about 8.00 pm, Narinder Jain was brought to his hospital by his relative. He was having injuries on his forehead and was conscious. He applied stitches on the forehead and, thereafter, the patient was discharged. This witness also clarified the injuries, that is, on the forehead and the right leg. Dr.Ramesh Gupta further proved prescription slips (Exhibit CW2/1 to CW2/D), but, he was not sure as to whether Narinder Jain died due to the injuries, referred to above or not. Since, the post mortem examination on the dead body of Narinder Jain was not conducted, so, it is not possible to hold that he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. So, the finding of the Tribunal that he did not die due to the injuries sustained in the accident, is affirmed.
16. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, that is, Rs.40,000/-, with respect to the injuries on the person of Narinder Jain, referred to above, the amount was rightly awarded and there is no scope for enhancement. FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) [5]. In Case of death of Shashi Jain :
17. In this case, the only submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at a lower rate, that is, Rs.1500/-, which should have been at least Rs.3000/- per month.
18. In Lata Wadhawa and others vs. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673 a full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various issues raised in writ petition filed by the petitioners including the one relating to payment of compensation to the victims of rd fire accident which occurred on March 3 , 1989 resulting into the death of 16 persons and injuries to 113 persons. On the issue of payment of compensation to house-wives, it was observed in paragraph No.10 as under:-
“10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000/- per annum in case of some and Rs. 10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3000/- per month FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) [6]. and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be re-calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs. 10,000/- per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the value of services rendered at Rs. 10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we therefore, enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be re-determined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs. 20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs. 50,000/- towards the conventional figure.”
19. A Division Bench of this Court in Paramjit Singh and another vs. Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga and others FAO No.3310 of 2012 decided on May 16, 2013 after referring to the judgment rendered in Lata Wadhawa's case supra assessed the income of house wife at rd Rs.3000/- and also held that there should not be 1/3 deduction for her personal living and expenses so, in this case, the dependency is assessed at Rs.3000/- per month. Multiplier of 15 was rightly applied by the Tribunal. Applying the same, the amount of dependency comes to Rs.3000 x 12 x 15 = 5,40,000/-.
20. Taking into consideration the age of the minot children at the FAO No.394 of 2011 (O&M) [7]. time of death of their mother in the accident and thereafter, unfortunate demise of their father within three months (may not be due to the accident), this Court is of the opinion that the claimants (children) should be allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, each, under the head of `loss of love and affection'. This amount has been awarded by this Court in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013(2) RCR(Civil) 945. In all, the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- (5,40,000+1,00,000+1,00,000+5,000).
21. Accordingly, FAO No.394 of 2011 is allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,45,000/-. The interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.4,70,000/- (745000-275000) shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal.
22. FAO No.395 of 2011 is dismissed. August 22, 2013 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE Refer to Reporter : YES