IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) [CASE NUMBER] (O&M). Date of Decision: 10.10.2013. [ENTITY] and others Appellants Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents
(2) FAO No. 3294 of 2012 (O&M). Date of Decision: 10.10.2013. [ENTITY] and another Appellants Versus
The [ENTITY] and others Respondents (3) FAO No. 3295 of 2012 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 10.10.2013.
[ENTITY] and another Appellants Versus The [ENTITY] and others Respondents (4) FAO No. 5313 of 2012 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 10.10.2013.
Smt. [ENTITY] and others Appellants Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for appellants in FAO No.961 & 5313. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for appellants in FAO No.3294-95 for respondents No.1 & 2 in FAO No.961
for appellants in No.2 to 4 in FAO No.3294-95.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for New India Insurance Company in FAO No.961 & 3294.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for New India Insurance Company in FAO No.3295 & 5313.
[ENTITY].J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals bearing No.961, 3294, 3295 and 5313 of 2012 filed against st the common Award dated January 31 , 2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short "the Tribunal").
2. [CASE NUMBER] has been filed by widow and minor children, aged 5 years and 3 years, of [ENTITY] (deceased).
3. FAO No.5313 of 2012 has been filed by widow, minor son, aged 6 years and daughter aged 5 years of [ENTITY] (deceased).
4. Mother of deceased [ENTITY] was also one of the claimants, who has now been arraigned as respondent No.4. Similarly, father of [ENTITY] (deceased) was one of the claimants. Now he is arraigned as respondent No.4.
5. [CASE NUMBER] have been filed by driver and owner of offending four wheeler bearing No. HR-55-A- 0721 (for short "the offending vehicle").
6. On November 21 , 2008 [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (both deceased) were going on motor cycle bearing No. HR-14-C- 4663. The motor cycle was being driven by [ENTITY]. They were being followed by their uncle [ENTITY] and one [ENTITY] on another motor cycle. When they reached near Sanpla, the offending vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by [ENTITY], came at a fast speed from opposite direction, steered towards its wrong side and hit the motor cyclist. Both of them suffered multiple injuries. [ENTITY] died on the spot. [ENTITY] was brought to hospital th where he succumbed to his injuries on December 6 , 2008. FIR No.290 dated November 21st, 2008 under [SECTION] etc. IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Police Station Saplan. Post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies of the deceased was conducted and the reports are Exhibits P-11 and P-
7. Legal representatives of both the deceased filed separate claim applications under [SECTION] of the [ACT] before the Tribunal.
8. It was alleged that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were employees of a firm in the name and style M/s Hawk Eye Protection and Detective Services Private Limited, Delhi and drawing salary of Rs.4500/- per month. Besides, [ENTITY] was also earning Rs.5500/- from his agricultural land. [ENTITY] was aged 32 years and [ENTITY] was 22 years old.
9. In case of death of [ENTITY], the Tribunal held th his income at Rs.4166/- per month. Deduction of 1/4 was made therefrom for his personal and living expenses and the dependency was assessed at Rs.3,124/- per month. The multiplier of 13 was applied considering age of mother of the deceased, that is, 50 years and the loss of dependency was held at Rs.4,87,344/-. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was awarded for medical treatment of [ENTITY] th because he died on December 6 , 2008 while hospitalized. A sum of Rs.5000/- each was awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- were awarded for loss of consortium. In all, compensation of Rs.5,27,344/- was awarded to the claimants.
10. In case of death of [ENTITY], his income was held th at Rs.3764/- per month. Deduction of 1/4 was made therefrom for his personal and living expenses. The dependency was assessed at Rs.2823/-. Again, considering age of father of the deceased, that is, 49 years, the multiplier of 13 was applied and the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.4,40,388/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- each was awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- were awarded for loss of consortium. Total compensation of Rs.4,60,388/- was awarded to the claimants.
11. The vehicle was insured with the [ENTITY] Limited. Since the licence of driver of the offending vehicle was not placed on record so, it was held that he was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and as such, the insurance company was given right to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
12. In appeal filed by the widow and children of both the deceased, it has been urged that the multiplier has been wrongly applied by the Tribunal because it was so applied considering age of mother in case of death of [ENTITY] and father in case of death of [ENTITY] whereas the loss of dependency should have been assessed considering age of the deceased. It has also been contended that no amount should have been deducted on account of contributions made towards PF and ESI in case of death of [ENTITY].
13. At the time of their unfortunate death, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were aged 32 years and 28 years respectively which is evident from the statements of their widows Smt. [ENTITY] (PW-3) and [ENTITY] (PW-2) and the post-mortem examination reports (Exhibits P-11 and P-12). [ENTITY] (PW-4) Accounts Manager, Hawk Eye Protection and Detective Services and [ENTITY] (PW-5) an official of the said company deposed that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were the employees of the company and working as Security/Supervisor Guards. [ENTITY] was drawing salary of Rs.4490/- per month. [ENTITY] was drawing salary of Rs.3764/- per month. In the case of [ENTITY], the net salary was assessed at Rs.4166/- after deducting PF and ESI. It was wrongly deducted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [PRECEDENT] so, his salary is taken to be Rs.4490/- per month. For convenience, the figure is rounded off to Rs.4500/-. No evidence worth the name was led by the claimants except the bald statement of widow that he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.5000/- per month. An addition of 50% to the salary of the deceased is given for future prospects in view the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. The figure comes to Rs.6750/- (4500+2250).
th Deduction of 1/4 is made therefrom for the personal and living expenses of the deceased and the dependency is assessed at Rs.5063/- per month. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 considering the age of mother of [ENTITY] to be 50 years. It is basic law that in case of death of a married person, age of the deceased is to be considered while granting compensation to the widow and children and not the age of the parents. The Tribunal comprises a Judicial Officer in the rank of District/Additional District Judge. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not even know that in the present case, age of the deceased was to be taken into consideration in applying the multiplier and not the parents. The Tribunal ought to have known this elementary law on the point in motor accident cases. [ENTITY] was married. He was 32 years old so, multiplier of 16 is to be applied as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. Thus, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.9,72,096/-.
14. At the time, when [ENTITY], minor daughter and [ENTITY] minor son of [ENTITY] lost their father, they were aged 5 years and 3 years respectively. The deceased was the only bread winner of the family so, both of them are awarded Rs.1 lac each for the loss of love and affection in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT].
15. The widow of the deceased was only 22 years old at the time of death of her husband. A sum of Rs.1 lacs is awarded to her for loss of consortium in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) in which the meaning of consortium has been explained.
16. The compensation under the remaining heads shall remain unaltered. The claimants-appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,02,096/- on account of death of [ENTITY].
17. The salary of deceased [ENTITY] was assessed at Rs.3764/- per month. In view of what has been observed in [ENTITY]'s case (supra), an addition of 50% is given to the salary of the deceased for future prospects and the figure comes to Rs.5646/-
th (3764+1882). Deduction of 1/4 is made therefrom for the personal and living expenses of the deceased and the dependency comes to Rs.4235/-. In this case also, the Tribunal was totally unjustified in applying the multiplier of 13 keeping in view age of father of the deceased, that is, 49 years. [ENTITY] was 28 years of age so, in view of [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), multiplier of 17 is applied and the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.8,63,940/-. A sum of Rs.1 lac is awarded to the widow of the deceased for loss of consortium. A sum of Rs.1 lac is awarded to each child of the deceased for loss of love and affection. The compensation under the remaining heads shall remain unaltered. Thus, the claimants-appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,73,940/-.
18. In [CASE NUMBER] filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, it has been urged that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the same was taken into possession by the Police at the time when he was challaned for causing this accident. Since the licence was on the file of criminal case, it could not be produced by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal.
19. On the other hand, Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, learned counsel for the insurance company has urged that licence (Annexure A-5) was not issued to [ENTITY] to drive transport vehicle because it has been issued by the Licensing Authority to drive the light motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle but the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle.
20. The appellants have placed on record photocopies of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle (Annexure P-3) along with report of the District Transport Officer, Narnual (Annexure A-5) whereby it has been stated that driving licence bearing No. DL-886-R-2005 (Annexure A-3) was issued in the name of [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] to drive LMV th and HMV. The same was issued on July 11 , 2008 and valid upto th June 25 , 2011. Copy of the Recovery Memorandum (Annexure A-
4) whereby licence of [ENTITY] was taken into possession by the Police at the time of his arrest, has also been placed on record. They have filed an application for leading additional evidence in respect of licence (Annexure P-3) and the report of the Transport Authority (Annexure P-5). Even if, the documents could not be produced before the Tribunal for one reason or the other, this Court is alive to the proposition that the proceedings in motor accident claim cases are summary in nature. The strict rules of [ACT] are not applicable in such cases. So, the application for leading additional evidence is allowed. Licence (Annexure P-3) and the report of the Transport Authority (Annexure P-5) are taken on record and marked as P-1 & P-2 respectively. From the driving licence (Mark P-1) and the report of the Licensing Authority (Mark P-2), it is proved that [ENTITY] driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of alleged accident. In rebuttal thereto, no evidence has been led by the insurance company.
21. The submission of learned counsel for the insurance company pales into insignificance. The offending vehicle was a four wheeler. It was a goods carrier and the licence in question falls within the definition of 'heavy motor vehicle' so, it is held that [ENTITY] was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the [ENTITY] vide insurance policy (Exhibit R-1) so, the driver, owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle are held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants jointly and severally.
22. The interest on the enhanced amounts of compensation shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amounts were deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal.
23. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
10.10.2013. ([ENTITY]) SN JUDGE Whether Refer to reporter : Yes