FAO No. 2079 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2079 of 1996 Date of decision : 31.1.2008. ... Rakmani Devi and others ................ appellants vs. Ajmer Singh and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2. Sh. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Sh.Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) Rukmani Devi and others had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming an amount of Rs.5 lacs on account of death of Jaswant Singh husband of Rukmani Devi and father of remaining claimants. It is pleaded that on 2.4.1994, Jaswant Singh alongwith Kanhiya Lal were coming from Taraori to their village on their separate bicycles. They were going on left side of the road and when they reached near link road of Pakhana a tempo bearing registration FAO No. 2079 of 1996 -2- No. HR-05-7697 being driven by respondent No.1 Ajmer Singh at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came from Taraori side and struck against the cycle of Jaswant Singh. Due to impact Jaswant Singh fell down on the road and received multiple and grievous injuries and died at the spot. Notice was given to the respondents, who filed joint written statement, taking preliminary objections that the claim petiton is not maintainable; that the claimants have no locus standi to file and maintain the petition; that the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation as the accident did not took place due to fault of respondent No.1. On merits they denied the allegations of the claimants. Respondent No.3- Insurance Company filed separate written statement, raising preliminary objections that claimants have no locus standi; that the claim petition is bad on account of mis- joinder and non-joinder of parties; that the claimants have got no cause of action against the answering respondent; that the claim petition has not been properly presented and verified; that the claimants are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the claim petition. It was also pleaded that driver was not holding a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further pleaded that deceased was old and infirm person and was fully dependent upon other members of the family. Following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of tempo No. HR-05-7697 by Ajmer Singh? OPP FAO No. 2079 of 1996 -3- 2. Whether Jaswant Singh died of the injuries received by him in the accident in question, if so, to what extend? OPP 3. That what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP 4. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence on the file returned the finding on issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants. However, while deciding issue No.3, it has been held by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.800/- per month and his contribution towards his family was Rs.600/- per month. So the annual dependency comes to Rs.72,000/- The age of deceased was between 50-55 years and the multiplier of 5 was applied and the total compensation assessed was Rs.36,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal has held that since respondent No.1 has been arrayed as party on 2.12.1994 and the accident had taken place on 2.4.1994, and as such petitioners are not entitled to any amount from any of the respondents and the petition is time barred. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of Insurance Company on the ground of limitation and consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid award, the appellants have come in this appeal. The learned Tribunal has returned a finding on issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners and that finding has not been FAO No. 2079 of 1996 -4- challenged by filing cross objections. Otherwise also, there is no material on the record to interfere in the finding of learned Tribunal on issues no. 1 and 2. The appellants/claimants have been non-suited on the ground that application for arraying Ajmer Singh was made after a period of six months and there is no application for condonation of delay in filing the petition. Since the petition against respondent No.1 driver is time barred and consequently, respondent No.2 owner cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the result that Insurance Company is also not liable , as there is no liability on respondent no.2. I have heard both the sides at length and have gone through the record of the case. The petitioners have been non-suited merely on the ground that application for arraying the driver has been filed after a period of six months and on that account the petitioners have been non-suited. The said approach of the learned Tribunal is hyper-technical. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a welfare legislation and has been enacted to provide speedy relief to the road victim. The Parliament in its wisdom has deleted the clause of limitation by amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Apex Court in authority Dhannalal vs. D.P. Vijayvargia reported in 1996 (3) P.L.R. 656 : 1996 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 76 : 1996 (83) A.I.R. (SC) 2155 has held that after deletion of Sub-Section (3), if the claim petition in respect of an accident which took place on 4.12.1990 was not filed till 14.11.1994, in view of the amended Act the claimant is entitled to file such claim, the period of limitation having been deleted and the claim petitions FAO No. 2079 of 1996 -5- which were pending before the Tribunal, High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be thrown away on the ground of delay. Otherwise also the claim petition was filed within limitation. The application for amending the name of respondent shall relate to the date of filing the claim petition. So, in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.800/- per month and his contribution towards the family has been assessed as Rs.600/- per month. That finding does not require any intervention. However, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5 considering the age of deceased as 50-55. The said multiplier assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. So, I assess the multiplier in this case as 10. So, in these circumstances, the finding of the learned Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 stands modified/reversed and it is held that claimants are entitled to claim Rs.72,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The award of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the application for compensation stands accepted. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are jointly held liable to pay the amount of Rs.72,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. The primary liability to pay the above said amount is that of Insurance Company-respondent No.3. FAO No. 2079 of 1996 -6- The inter se apportionment is given as under:- Rukmani Devi Rs.22,000/- Shakuntla Rs.10,000/- Babu Ram Rs.10,000/- Kamlesh Rs.10,000/- Rama Devi Rs.10,000/- Dharampal Rs.10,000/- In case any of the claimants is still minor, his share shall be deposited in some nationalized bank, in such a manner that minor shall get maximum rate of interest. The said amount be disbursed to the said minor-claimant on attaining his age of majority without the intervention of the Court to the satisfaction of the Manager of the bank in which the amount of compensation is deposited. ( K.C. Puri ) 31.1.2008. Judge chug