Smt. Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Jot Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Rajesh Tandon, J.

1. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Purohit and Sri Rajendra Dobhal assisted by Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the present appeal, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the award dated 2nd September, 1993, by which the claim petition has been allowed to the extent of award of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest (c) 12%.

3. Briefly stated, on 24.1.1991 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased Deepak Singh was returning home on his Luna Moped near Karjan Road Chauraha at Rajpur road from Raja Bazar. Near Karjan Road, a Truck bearing No. U.R.M.-3406, which was coming towards the Rissana River, took a wrong side and due to rash and negligent driving, it hit the Luna. As a result of this, the deceased got severely injured and his Moped got damaged.

4. The deceased Deepak was admitted to the Hospital, where during the treatment, he ultimately died.

5. The report of the aforesaid incident was lodged at P.S. Dalanvala by Sri Ranjit Singh. He also submitted that the moped has become badly damaged and approximately expense of Rs. 1,000 will come in its repair. He has stated that he has suffered mental as well as physical agony on account of the same.

6. He has claimed that the deceased was working as technical labour in Survey of India, Dehradun and was getting a sum of Rs, 1,550 per month and on account of the death of the bread-earner, whole family has been disturbed.

7. Accordingly, he has claimed the amount to the following expenditure :

1- ekufld 'kkjhfjd nq%[k oihM+k gsrq /kujkf'k2]00]0002- vkfFkZd gkfu4]50]0003- bykt ds O;;1]0004- nkg laLdkj esa [kpkZ2]0005- eksisM dk uqdlku1]000dqy ;ksx6]54]000

8. The opposite parties have contested the case by filing the written statement denying the allegations against them.

9. Respondent No. 2 Mahant Indresh Charan Dass the owner of the vehicle has denied that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.

10. Respondent No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company in its written statement, has denied that the claimants are entitled for any relief. The Claims Tribunal has framed following issues :

(1) As to whether the truck driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently?

(2) As to whether the claimants are entitled to get the compensation and from which opposite party?

(3) Relief?

11. While deciding the issue No. 1 a finding was recorded by the Claims Tribunal that on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 as well as the report dated 24th November, 1991, under Section 240/424/304, it is fully evident that the accident had occurred on the said date and Deepak Singh Rana received grievous injuries as will appear from the post-mortem report. These facts having not been disputed and the findings was recorded while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. The said facts have also not been challenged by the Insurance Company and no appeal has been preferred, only the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement and we are of the opinion while deciding the issues No. 2 and 3 that the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,600 per month. The same has also been proved from Paper No. 17Ga, i.e., the payment certificate, he would have been retired on 30.11.2008 and the department has certified by Paper No. 18Ga. The promotional avenues were also open for the deceased. The total income, which has been calculated by the Claims Tribunal was Rs. 1,559 and within one year the salary of the deceased became Rs. 18,708 and he was aged about 40 years.

12. Out of that amount 1/3rd is to be deducted towards the own expenses of the deceased if he would have been alive, thus the annual dependency of the claimants on the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 6,236.

13. Considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 15 would be just and proper, thus the total compensation comes to (Rs. 6,235 x 15) = Rs. 1,86,930.

14. Apart from the above, the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 as loss of estate.

15. Thus, the appellants are awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,000 as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.