IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 State of Haryana and another ....Appellants Versus Sarita Malik and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Hry. None for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Alongwith the present appeal, the Court intends to dispose of F.A.O. No.139 of 1995 as both the appeals have arisen out of the impugned award dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala. One Surinder Singh Malik was coming to Chandigarh from Delhi on 5.6.1993 in Maruti car No.HR-06-0099 belonging to his sister Sarita Malik. As per the averments made in the claim petitions, he was driving the vehicle on correct side of the road and at a very moderate speed. When the vehicle reached in front of Guru Granth Sahib Bhawan on G.T. Road in the area of village Shahpur, a Tipper bearing registration No.HNL-7027 came from the opposite side and said to be F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 -2- driven in a zig-zag manner by its driver who was rash and negligent in driving it at a very high-speed without observing the traffic rules. It struck the Maruti car after going on the wrong side of the road. As a result of the accident, the Maruti car was damaged beyond repairs whereas Surinder Singh Malik sustained numerous injuries. He was removed to Civil Hospital, Ambala City where he was medico-legally examined. After having been given first-aid, he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh where he remained under treatment from 5.6.1993 to 19.7.1993. However, on account of the injuries, he expired on 19.7.1993 at 8.00 A.M. The parents of Surinder Singh Malik, since deceased, filed the claim petition wherein they sought an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-as compensation. They stated therein that they had spent an amount of more than Rs.2,00,000/- on the treatment of the deceased and visit of the relatives to the hospital. Sarita Malik, owner of the Maruti car, also filed the claim petition wherein she sought an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. Both the claim petitions were consolidated vide order dated 9.2.1994 passed by the Tribunal. In both the claim petitions, the State of Haryana and Executive Engineer, who were employer of driver of Tipper and the driver himself, were arrayed as the respondents. In their written statements, the State of Haryana through its Secretary, Department of F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 -3- PWD (B&R), Haryana and Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, PWD (B&R) Branch, Karnal admitted the accident but attributed negligence on the part of the deceased. According to them, the driver of the Tipper tried his best to avoid the accident by taking his vehicle to his extreme left but the wheel of the car struck the Tipper. Bhadu Ram, driver of the Tipper, filed a separate written statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions. According to him, he was driving the Tipper and coming from the side of Ambala and going towards Karnal. When he reached in front of Guru Granth Sahib Bhawan at about 4.00 P.M., he took his vehicle off the road as it had developed a mechanical problem. He then left for bringing some mechanic for carrying out the repairs. When he came back, he noticed that the driver of the Maruti car had struck rear wheel of his stationary vehicle and as a result of the said impact U. bolts, centre bolt and driving shaft bolt had broken. As such the accident took place on account of the negligence of the deceased. FIR was lodged after about two months later from the date of the alleged accident and that was done for the sole purpose of setting up a false case for getting compensation. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the occurrence in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3? OPP. F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 -4- 2. To what amount of the compensation is the claimant entitled to and from whom ? OPP. 3. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the Tribunal held that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Bhadu Ram-respondent, who was driving the Tipper in question at the relevant time. Accordingly, both the claim petitions were accepted by awarding an amount of Rs.3,07,200/- as compensation to parents of the deceased on account of death of their son Surinder Singh Malik and an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- as compensation to Sarita Malik-claimant for the total damage to her car. All the respondents, who stood arrayed as such in the claim petitions, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforementioned amounts of compensation. Interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded on the aforementioned amounts from the date of filing of the petitions till payment. From the testimony of PW3 Karnail Singh, it stands established that at the time of the accident, the Tipper was coming from the side of Ambala at a fast speed and moving in a zig-zag manner. Its driver was not able to keep it moving on its left side and caused the accident by hitting the Maruti car. The accident in question had taken place on 5.6.1993, F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 -5- whereas the FIR was lodged on 2.8.1993. It is an admitted fact that on account of the injuries received by Surinder Singh Malik, he was first rushed to Civil Hospital, Ambala City where he was medico-legally examined. He was also given first-aid and then referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he continued receiving the treatment uptil 19.7.1993. Despite the same, Surinder Singh Malik could not survive and breathed his last on 19.7.1993 at 8.00 A.M. All this while, the parents and other relatives of the deceased must be on their toes in getting the best possible medical treatment for Surinder Singh Malik. They were not expected to rush to the police and lodge the FIR as that would have resulted in wastage of time. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. Even Karnail Singh, PW3 deposed that after the occurrence he had left for Ludhiana to stay with his sister for about 1½ months. When he came back and inquired about the condition of Surinder Singh Malik, thereafter, the police had came to him and recorded his statement. While the driver of the Tipper denied his presence with the vehicle at the time of the occurrence, the owners of the Tipper admitted the accident and blamed the driver of the Maruti car for the same. According to the driver of the Tipper, he had immediately brought the matter to the notice of the Junior Engineer (Mechanical), Incharge of Plant situated at Mohri. However, neither the Junior Engineer has been produced nor any document brought on the record that such a F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 -6- communication was made by the driver of the Tipper. In view of the above, the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is affirmed. As regards the compensation to which the claimants were entitled, evidence has come on the record that damage caused to the Maruti car was to the extent of Rs.1,24,504.58p. as was mentioned in report Ex.P6/A proved by PW4 Vikash Kohli, who was Surveyor of the Insurance Companies. He also reported that the damaged parts, if sold as salvage could fetch Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in awarding an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- to Sarita Malik, owner of the Maruti car, for total damage caused to her car. As regards deceased Surinder Singh Malik, though he was not employed at the time of the accident yet he had already passed engineering in Electronics and Communications. His class-fellow PW2- Pawan Kumar Khanna, having the same trade, was drawing Rs.5,540/- per month as salary which was subject to revision and after ten years he was likely to get Rs.12,000/- and an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of his retirement. After taking into consideration the facts that the deceased was unemployed and he could have married in due course of time and the parents were not dependent upon him but it was the pious duty of the son to contribute something to his family, learned Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was capable of contributing Rs.1,600/- per F.A.O. No. 138 of 1995 -7- month towards the family. The annual contribution would, thus, come to Rs.19,200/-. The deceased was 23 years of age at the time of the accident and multiplier of 16 was correctly applied so as to award an amount of Rs.3,07,200/- as compensation. However, nothing was granted on account of amounts spent on the treatment received by Surinder Singh Malik for 1½ months as his father had already received an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- as medical reimbursement. In view of the above, no case is made out for altering the compensation amount awarded to the sister of the deceased on account of damage to her car and to the parents of the deceased on account of death of their young son. The findings on issue No.2 are, accordingly, affirmed. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) May 07, 2010 JUDGE satish