Smt. Shanta Devi and ors. Vs. Bhupinder Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Surjit Singh, J.

1. Heard and gone through the record. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award of the Tribunal whereby 50% of the amount of compensation worked out on account of dependency has been reduced with the finding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and also no interest has been awarded from the date of the petition to the date of the passing of the award.

2. Relevant facts are as follows. Deceased Bhup Singh was employed as a Guard. His gross monthly salary was to the tune of Rs. 2,466/-. On 28th May, 1992, around 9.30 p.m., when he was going along National Highway in NH-21 on his scooter, in Bhojpur Bazaar, Sundernagar, one Maruti Car and one TATA SUMO were parked in no parking zone. The scooter rammed into the Maruti Car. Bhup Singh somehow managed to stabilize the scooter and soon thereafter it rammed into the TATA SUMO. As a result of that he sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to PGI Chandigarh where he breathed his-last on 30th May, 1992. It was alleged that the cause of accident was parking of the aforesaid two vehicles in the no parking zone, which amounted to negligence on the part of the owners and the drivers of the said two vehicles. Therefore, claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was filed against the owners, drivers and the insurer of both the vehicles. Respondents contested the claim petition. It was alleged that deceased himself was to blame for the accident as his scooter rammed into the stationary vehicles. It was also alleged that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The Accident Claims Tribunal held that the parking of the two vehicles of the respondents in non-parking zone contributed to the occurrence of the accident, though that was not the sole cause. The Tribunal found that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,466/- per month and that out of that amount he had been contributing Rs. 400/- towards General Provident Fund and Rs. 30/- per month towards Group Insurance Scheme. The Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500/- and applied the multiplier of 14 years' purchase and then reduced the amount so worked out to 50% holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- and ordered that in case the amount was not deposited within one month of the making of the award interest would be payable @ 12% per annum from the date of the award.

3. Grievance of the appellants, who are the dependents of deceased Bhup Singh, is that no cut was required to be made in the amount of compensation payable on account of loss of dependency because the deceased could not have been said to be guilty of contributory negligence as the two vehicles were parked in the no parking zone. It is also their grievance that the monthly loss of dependency has not been correctly worked out in terms of money. Further, it is alleged that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Another grievance of the appellants is that the interest ought to have been awarded from the date of the petition to the date of payment of the compensation money.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The admitted facts are that Maruti Car and TATA SUMO, the owners, drivers and the insurer of which were impleaded as respondents in the claim petition, were parked, that is to say that the vehicles were stationary. Evidence has come that the vehicles were parked in no-parking zone. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of the accident by his own negligence. When the two vehicles were parked and were stationary, even though in no-parking zone or by the side of the road, the deceased ought to have brought his vehicle to a halt instead of allowing it to ram into the stationary vehicles.

5. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs 1,500/ - a month. This amount has been worked out by taking into account only the carry home salary of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased had been contributing Rs. 400/- a month to the General Provident Fund. This was in a way the saving or say augmentation of his estate. He would have continued the contribution to the General Provident Fund atleast at the aforesaid rate had he not died in the accident. Therefore, this amount of contribution to the General Provident Fund was also required to be taken into account for assessment of compensation, though not on account of loss of dependency, yet as loss to the estate. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 years' purchase. The age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, no fault can be found with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. Now, if this multiplier is adopted for working out compensation payable on account of loss to the estate, the amount comes to Rs. 67,200/-. This amount is required to be reduced to half on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. Thus, the compensation payable on account of loss to the estate comes to Rs. 33,600/-.

6. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,59,600/-, i.e. Rs. 1,26,000/-, already awarded by the Tribunal, plus Rs. 33,600/-, awarded by this Court, on account of loss to the estate.

7. As per law the claimants were entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the petition to the date of its payment to them. The Tribunal has, however, awarded the interest from the date of the award and that too in case the compensation amount was not deposited within one month of the making of the award. Therefore, it is ordered that the claimants be paid interest on the aforesaid amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition, i.e. 6th August, 1992, to the date of the deposit of the compensation amount.

8. Award of the Tribunal is modified in the aforesaid terms. Appeal is disposed of.