Judgment:
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals; the first filed by the owner of the offending truck and the second filed by the claimants, against the award dated 21.8.2002, rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind, relating to the same accident.
2. Facts in brief are that on 19.9.2000 at about 3.05 p.m. Anil Kumar, aged about 27 years, who was posted as operator in Hero Honda Factory and whose monthly salary was Rs. 14,274, along with one Ram Avtar Sharma, was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR 36-C 6599 to Housing Board Colony, Dharuhera after performing the duty and when they reached just close to the liquor shop near Hero Honda Factory, one cycle came in front of the motor cycle and Anil Kumar applied the brake. In the meantime, one tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HRG 6460, came from the back side, which was being driven by Ram Phal, driver thereof, in a rash and negligent manner. Tractor struck against the said motor cycle, as a result whereof, both Anil Kumar and Ram Avtar fell down on the road. The cyclist also fell down. Anil Kumar suffered head injury in this accident. Ram Avtar, pillion rider, also suffered injuries. An ambulance from Hero Honda Factory was called by Ram Avtar Sharma and Anil Kumar was taken to a hospital at Delhi, as he had become unconscious. The driver of the tractor ran away after leaving the tractor-trolley at the spot. Anil Kumar succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. A report was lodged by Ram Avtar with the police, with regard to the said accident. It was further pleaded that Meena, widow aged about 20 years; Pala Ram alias Ram, father; Sunehri, mother aged 45 years; Suman, sister aged 18 years and Anita, sister aged 25 years, were depending upon Anil Kumar for their livelihood. On account of the death of Anil Kumar, they suffered a huge loss. Not only this, Anil Kumar was the only son of his parents. Accordingly, a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the claimant for grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,00,000 (rupees thirty lakh).
3. The respondent No. 1 in his written statement stated that No. cause of action accrued to the claimants against him, as he never remained the driver of tractor No. HRG 6460. He further stated that he did not know about the owner of the tractor. It was further stated by him that a false criminal case was got registered against him and the police arrested him from his house. It was further stated by him that he was not connected with the tractor or the accident in any manner. The remaining averments were denied either being wrong or for want of knowledge.
4. The respondent No. 2 in his written statement stated that the tractor in question, did not belong to him and as such, the petition was not maintainable. It was further stated that the police registered a case against the respondent No. 1 and also got verified about the ownership of the alleged offending vehicle from the Registration Authority, Rewari and it was revealed that one Randhir Singh, son of Hans Raj and Raghubir Singh, son of Parshadi Lal, residents of village Kapri Wass, Tehsil Rewari were the owners of the same. It was further stated that the name of father of respondent No. 2 was Sheotaj Singh. It was further stated that under these circumstances respondent No. 2 was not connected with the tractor nor was liable to pay any compensation, if awarded. The remaining averments were denied either being wrong or for want of knowledge.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck on 17.1.2002:
(1) Whether Anil died as a result of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle in question by the respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
(3) Relief.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their claims. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by Ram Phal, respondent No. 1. It was further held by the Claims Tribunal that respondent No. 2 was the owner of the said tractor at relevant time. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 11,00,000 (rupees eleven lakh) to Meena, the widow and Sunehri, mother of the deceased in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively, with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The remaining petitioners were not held entitled to any compensation.
7. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award of the Claims Tribunal, two appeals referred to hereinbefore were filed, one by the claimants/appellants and the other by the alleged owner of the offending tractor.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellants in F.A.O. No. 5506 of 2002, at the very outset, contended that the Claims Tribunal was wrong in awarding very less compensation. He further contended that the Claims Tribunal was wrong in taking the dependency at Rs. 6,000 per month whereas the income of the deceased Anil Kumar was proved to be Rs. 15,000 per month. He further contended that the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal was also on the lower side. He further contended that the Claims Tribunal was also wrong in not granting compensation to the father and sisters of deceased Anil Kumar. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal appears to be partly correct. The age of deceased Anil Kumar at the time of accident and death was about 27 years. This fact duly proved from Exh. P3, copy of the matriculation examination certificate. In this document, the date of birth of the deceased is recorded as 13.1.1974. This fact is further confirmed from Exh. P5, copy of the post-mortem report, wherein the age of the deceased is recorded as 27 years. It is proved from the evidence on record that the deceased was working as operator in Hero Honda Factory. The salary certificate of the deceased is Exh. P2, which is duly proved by R.K. Godara, PW 2, who was an officer of Hero Honda Factory at the relevant time. According to this document, the total monthly emoluments of deceased were Rs. 15,587. Pala Ram, father of the deceased, while appearing as PW 4 stated that the monthly salary of the deceased Anil Kumar was Rs. 15,000. No. rebuttal evidence was produced to prove that the monthly salary of the deceased Anil Kumar was less than Rs. 15,000. No. doubt, in the salary certificate, it was mentioned that the deceased got Rs. 6,866 as production incentive in the month of August 2000. However, it cannot be said that he was getting the same every month. The Claims Tribunal was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 15,000.
10. The Claims Tribunal was, however, wrong in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was able to contribute only Rs. 6,000 per month towards his family. Keeping in view the nature of the job of the deceased in my considered opinion, he must be keeping a sum of Rs. 7,000 per month towards his personal maintenance and other miscellaneous expenses, thereby leaving a sum of Rs. 8,000 per month for his dependants. Since the age of the deceased at the time of accident and death was about 27 years, it was a fit case in which the multiplier of 16 was required to be applied, though the Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 which was in my opinion on the lower side. The principle of law laid down in Concord of India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), was to the effect that the determination of the quantum of compensation must be liberal not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country in genuine scales. The Claims Tribunal also held that only Meena, widow and Sunehri, mother of the deceased, were dependant upon him (Anil Kumar, deceased). However, the Claims Tribunal lost sight of the fact that Suman, sister of deceased Anil Kumar, aged about 18 years, a minor was also partly dependant upon him and partly on the income of her father. No. doubt, the father of the deceased was an earning hand but it was not possible for him to maintain the entire family with his meagre income. In these circumstances Meena, widow; Sunehri, mother and Suman, sister, being dependent upon him were entitled to compensation. The compensation which required to be awarded by the Claims Tribunal, thus, comes to Rs. 15,38,000 (Rs. 8,000 x 12 x 16 + Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses). Thus, they are entitled to the aforesaid compensation as follows:
(1) Meena, widow ofthe deceased Rs. 10,00,000(2) Sunehri, mother ofthe deceased Rs. 3,38,000(3) Suman, sister of the deceased (minor atthe relevant time) Rs. 2,00,000along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount. The findings of the Claims Tribunal on issue No. 2 are modified to the extent aforesaid.
11. In F.A.O. No. 70 of 2003, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Claims Tribunal was wrong in fastening the liability on respondent No. 2, holding him to be the owner of the tractor in question. Learned Counsel in this appeal further contended that Exh. R5, verification report from the office of the Registering Authority clearly shows that the appellant was not the owner of tractor No. HRG 6460. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal does not appear to be correct. Exh. R5 is the photocopy of the document which reveals that the owner of the tractor bearing registration No. HRG 6460 is Randhir Singh, son of Hans Raj and Raghubir Singh, son of Parshadi Lal, whereas the name of the father of appellant is Sheotaj. This document was not proved in accordance with law. It was produced by Ram Phal, driver, while appearing in the witness-box as RW 1. When this document was exhibited in the court of the Claims Tribunal, an objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the claimants, regarding its proof and admissibility, which was kept open. It is No. doubt true that in an inquiry in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Indian Evidence Act are not strictly applicable. However, the document on which a party wants to place reliance, must be proved in accordance with the provisions of law. If a document is not proved, then the same cannot be taken into consideration. In Sait Tarajee Khim-chand v. Yelamarti Satyam : AIR1971SC1865 , the principle of law laid down was to the effect that mere marking of a document as an exhibit, does not dispense with its proof. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Ram Phal is neither the author of document, Exh. R5, nor the same was prepared in his presence, nor the same was signed in his presence, nor he could identify the signatures of the person who signed the same. Under these circumstances, he had No. knowledge, whatsoever, with regard to Exh. R5. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this document was proved during the course of evidence of Ram Phal. In case the appellant wanted to prove this document, he was required to summon an official from the office of the Registering Authority along with record of the tractor in question and get proved this document in accordance with provisions of law. He did not follow this method.
12. Under these circumstances, No. reliance on this document could be placed. On the other hand, Ram Avtar, PW 3, in his cross-examination had stated that Randhir Singh was having possession of the said tractor as owner. Ram Pal, RW1, the driver of the alleged tractor, during the course of cross-examination stated that he did not know whether the tractor bearing registration No. HRG 6460 was in possession of Randhir Singh and he was actually the owner of the same. He further stated that he did not know whether Randhir Singh used to take the goods of Shiv Engineering Co. in this tractor to Hero Honda Factory. In case this tractor did not belong to Randhir Singh, then he could certainly make a statement in this regard and would not have evaded the knowledge with regard to the ownership of Randhir Singh in respect thereof. R.K. Godara, Deputy Manager, who appeared in the witness-box as PW 2 stated that the tractor bearing registration No. HRG 6460 used to supply the goods to the factory. Randhir Singh, respondent No. 2, appellant did not appear as his own witness to prove that the tractor in question did not belong to him. Under these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the tractor in question was in possession and control of Randhir Singh, respondent No. 2, at the time of accident. The submission of the learned Counsel for appellant in this regard being without merit must fail and the same is rejected. The findings of the Claims Tribunal that Randhir Singh, respondent No. 2, was the owner in possession of the tractor in question at the time of accident are affirmed.
13. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, F.A.O. No. 70 of 2003 titled as Randhir Singh v. Meena is dismissed with No. order as to costs.
14. F.A.O. No. 5506 of 2002 titled as Meena v. Ram Phal is partly accepted with No. order as to costs. The impugned award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,38,000 instead of Rs. 11,00,000, awarded by the Tribunal, is granted in favour of Meena, widow; Sunehri, mother and Suman, sister of deceased Anil Kumar as per the shares, depicted in para 10 of the judgment, holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Appellants Meena, Sunehri and Suman are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the same. If any amount has been received by these appellants, under No. fault liability clause, the same shall stand adjusted against the amount finally awarded. The shares of the minor appellants, if they have not attained majority shall be deposited in some nationalised bank and they shall be entitled to receive the same on attaining majority. Order accordingly.