Mrs. Leela Ohri and ors. Vs. the Punjab State Electricity Board and ors. - Court Judgment

K.P. Bhandari, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 254 of 1985 and 143 of 1985 as they both arise out of the same judgment.

2. Inderjit Ohri, Tarsem Lal Singla. Ms. Manjeet Maunder were travelling in the same car. The car was coming from Delhi to Patiala. The accident took place on February 27, 1981 at about 1.45 P.M. on the G. T. Road, near bus stop of Sham Garh on Ambala side In this unfortunate accident Inderjit Ohri and Tarsem Lal Singla, occupants of the car were killed. The appellant-claimants, Leela Ohri, widow, Rajiv Ohri and Sanjeev Ohri, sons, and, Ms. Reeta Amar, daughter of the deceased filed claim for compensation The deceased, Inderjit Ohri, was serving as Under Secretary in the Punjab State Electricity Board He had the prospect of getting promotion upto the rank of Deputy Secretary in the ordinary course Claim petition was contested by the respondents No. 1 to 4. They filed separate written statements. The Tribunal allowed a claim of Rs. 1,43,917/-. The Tribunal held Leela Ohri entitled to Rs. 1,13,917/ and claimants No. 2 to 4 were held to be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- each. The Tribunal also allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. My findings on various issues are as under :-

Issue No. 1 :

Sarup Singh, PW-5, Sarpanch of the village Shamgarh who saw the occurrence, appeared in the witness box. He clearly stated that at the time of accident on 27-2-1981 at about 1.45/2.00 P M. he and Fatch Singh were going from Taraori to Shamgarh on the cycle. The cycle was being driven by Fatch Singh. He says that they were present at the time of accident. The car was coming from the Delhi side and it was on the left side. The truck No. HRU-591 coming from Pipli side which was being driven rashly struck against the car by going on the wrong side. He further deposed that the driver of the car and a girl sitting in the car were seriously injured. The other occupant of the car died on the spot. The accident took place from half a furlong from the bus stop Shamgarh. It is further stated that Baldev Singh, respondent was the driver of the truck. It is also deposed that Baldev Singh, driver after the accident left the spot and came after sometime with the owner of the truck No. HRU-591. In cross-examination, he stated that the truck had gone on the side of the car and it caused accident. He has deposed that he remained on the spot for about 2 hours. Thereafter the police reached. Kanwar Singh had also come from the side of Taraori. He too had seen the accident. He is the lambardar of the village. The presence of the witnesses on the spot is most natural PW-3 Ram Krishan, Sub-Inspector has deposed that FIR No. 28 dated 27-2-1981 under Section 304 IPC was recorded in police station, Batana. The FIR is titled 'State v. Baldev Singh'. He stated that he investigated the case and has prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence which is Exhibit 'PC'. In cross examination he has explained that Ram Sarup and Fatch Singh were present at the spot when he reached there at about 3.45 P.M. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence on record came to the conclusion that accident bad taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No. HRU-591, Baldev Singh. In this view of the matter the Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the claimants. Mr. L. M. Suri, learned senior counsel for the respondents strongly contended by relying upon the site plan and the photographs that at the time of the accident the truck was en the kacha pavement. This contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. There is no evidence on the record that at the time of accident the truck was on the kucha path. Moreover, PW-4 Ram Krishan, Sub-Inspector has stated that after the accident the truck dragged the car towards the side of Delhi. Site plan PC shows that the accident took place towards the left side of the load if one goes from Delhi to Ambala. The truck caused accident by coming on its wrong side. The truck dragged the car upto certain distance. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that from the evidence of PW-1 Ram Sarup, Kanwar Singh and Ram Krishan. S.I, PW-4, it is fully established that the truck had gone on the wrong side and hit against the car. The accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. In this view of the matter, I am in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.

Issues No. 5 and 12 :

Mr. Inderjit Ohri, deceased was employed at the time of the accident as Under Secretary in Punjab State Electricity Board. According to the record, at the time of his death, his age was 52 years. The total salary of the deceased in November, 1981 according to Certificate Exhibit PA was Rs. 2,552/-. In normal course, Mr. Ohri, deceased would have been promoted as Deputy Secretary in the scale of Rs. 1,700-75-2,300 plus Rs. 200/- as special pay. He was also getting Rs. 400/- as house rent The Tribunal while determining his emoluments deducted Rs. 400/-as house rent from the total salary which he was getting. The Tribunal determined that his emoluments were Rs. 2,252/- p.m The Tribunal considered that the deceased must be spending l/3rd of his salary on himself. So after l/3rd deduction, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the loss to the estate was Rs. 1501/- p.m. In this way, the Tribunal calculated that loss to the estate was Rs. 18,012/- per annum. The Tribaii'al applied multiplier of 12. By applying the multiplier the Tribunal determined that the compensation payable to him was Rs. 180,120/- The tribunal repelled the contention advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that out of the loss to the estate the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 22,400/-, gratuity amount of Rs. 14,280/- and Rs. 7,480/-, G. P. F. Rs. 21,272/- and Rs. 32,193 71 on account of house lean which was written off by the Board, should be deducted. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhagat Singh, Sohan Singh v.Smt Sharma, (1983) 85 P. L. R. 1 (F B.) these amounts should not, be deducted. The Tribunal, however, held that loan amount of Rs. 32,193.71 P, alongwith interest and Rs. 40,009 94 P. alongwith interest on account of scooter loan was payable by Mr. Ohri, deceased, lie would have been liable to pay the amounts if he had not died In this way, the Tribunal made a deduction of Rs. 36,202/-. In this way the Tribunal worked out that'claimants are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,43,916 25. This figure was rounded off to Rs. 1,43,917/- The Tribunal also repelled the contention of, the respondent-Insurance Company that the father of the deceased, Mr. Ohri, was in employment and, therefore, this should also be taken into consideration. For this proposition, the Tribunal relied upon Nirmala Sharma v. Raja Ram , 1982 A. C. J 143. Finally, the Tribunal held that the claimant-appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,43,917/- as compensation. In appeal ,Darshan Singh, Under Secretary, was examined. He has deposed that Inderjit Ohri, deceased, was Under Secretary (Legal). He was a Law Graduate. The Secretary of the Board had requested the Secretary of the Bar Council for permitting enrolment to the deceased as Advocate so that he may appear on behalf of the Board. He also deposed that there is a copy of enrolment certificate issued by the Bar Council in favour of the deceased. He deposed that the date of enrolment of Mr. Ohri was 26-3-1973. Mr. Ohri qualified' LL B. from Punjab University. He stood first in the University Certificate of merit was issued to him on 11-2-1974. This is Exhibit HC/1 on the record. The certificate; issued by the Bar Council of India shows that Mr. Ohri passed the examination in Law and Practical Procedure prescribed by the Bar Council .in September, 1967. This certificate is Exhibit HC/2. A copy of the certificate of enrolment issued by the Bar Council dated 25-3-1975 is Exhibit HC/3. There is a revision of pay-scales vide circular No. 190/Fin./PRC-1988 dated 23-1-1990 whereby the Board has revised the pay scales of Deputy Secretaries from Rs. 3,000/. to Rs. 3,700/- w.e.f. 1-1-1986. A copy of the same has also been produced; in evidence.

3. Taking into consideration that there is a revision of pay-scales and the deceased, was a Law Graduate that the deceased-was serving as Under Secretary (Legal); that he had the experience1 of handling cases in the Board ; that he had a brilliant academic career ; that he stood first in the LL. B, examination, on the Request of the Board, the Bar Council, according to its rules, allowed him the. licence to appear in Courts. He could engage himself in legal profession after retirement. According to the rules of the Bar Council, the Legal Advisors of the Corporations are allowed enrolment'. So, after retirement the deceased had the opportunity to set up legal practice and in normal circumstances he could practise upto the age of' 75 years f without any difficulty. Keeping in, view the above facts, the deceased would have been promoted as Deputy Secretary in the. normal course. He would have enjoyed higher grade of the post of the Deputy Secretary. He would have got higher pension and retirement benefits. So, in order to., allow, fair compensation to the claimants, in my opinion the multiplier of 20 should be applied.

4. The, Tribunal has deducted from the emoluments of the deceased while determining the loss to the estate, the house-rent allowance allowed to him. The house-rent is a part of the wages. This is a cash benefit which is payable to a public servant. There, is no reason to deduct this amount. This deduction should not have been made, I set aside the findings of the Tribunal on this point and order that this amount, should be added

5. Mr. L. M. Suri, Senior Advocate, strongly contended, that the Court should not take into consideration the revision of pay-scales. The Court also should not give any importance to the fact that be was enrolled as on advocate He was a public servant and the compensation should be worked out only on the basis of the emoluments, he was getting at the time of his death.

6. In Joginder Kaur v. State of Haryana , (1991-1) 99 P. L. R. 49. N. C. Jain, J., held that in the case of professional young man, a multiplier, pf 20 can always be applied. In Snit'. Usha Soni v. State of Haryana , (1989-2) 96 P. h. R. 541. S S. Sodhi, J., held that in case of professionals, such as doctors, their span of gainful employment extends beyond the normal date of retirement of those in service, in that they can continue doing professional work as long as they are physically capable of doing so, Keeping in view-this aspect, alongwith the age and other circumstances, the appropriate multiplier, in the said case, was applied to be 20. In Shmt. Urmila Devi, v. Baljit Singh , (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 562. A. L. Babri, J., applied a multiplier of 20. Recently, the Suprpme Court in: Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, J. T. 1992 (2) S C. 409. Kuldip Singhs J. observed that in the matter of determination of quantum of compeastion, the courts must be liberal where life and limb in generous scales are involved and the Supreme Court applied a multiplier of 24.

7. It is clear that Mr. Inderjit Ohri, deceased, would, have retired at the age of 58 years. Much before his retirement, he would have been promoted at least to the rank of Deputy Secretary,(Legal) being a Law Graduate and haying experience as Under: Secretary (Legal), after retirement, would have started practice as an advocate. Considering the facts of the 'case in my opinion, in this case in order; to determine the proper 'compensation payable to the claimants appellants, a multiplier of at least 20 should have beep applied. It is unfortunate that in this case, the insurance company obtained a stay order from this Court and no payment was made to the claimants. It was only at a later stage that I ordered that at least Rs. one lac be paid to the claimants. Thereafter the payment of Rs. one lac. made to the claimant. The insurance-company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, within three months.

8. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,252/- p. m To this house rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- to be added. In this way, the total emoluments come to Rs. 2,652/- p.m. By applying one-third deduction, the loss to the estate will come to Rs. 1,768/- The annual dependency will be Rs. 21,216/-. By applying a multiplier of 20, the compensation payable will be Rs. 4,24,320/. In Rukmani Devi v. Om Parkash, 1991 A.C. J. 3 (S.C.), the Supreme Court allowed interest on the compensation amoun at the rate of 15 per cent. I also followed this judgment in Mala Aggarwal v. Jagdish Kumar, 1992 A.C.J.123. In view of the above discussion, I allow interest at the rate of 15 per cent in this case.

9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by Smt. Leels Ohri and others (F. A O 254/1985) is accepted and they will be entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. They will further be entitled to interest @ 15% p. a from the date of claim application. The appeal is accepted with costs The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed with costs. The insurance-company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, within a period of three months.