FAO No.1283 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1283 of 1991 Date of decision 31.3.2010. FAO No. 1283 of 1991. Sat Parkash ---Appellant. vs. Joginder Singh and others ..... Respondents. Present : Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate and Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the respondents. FAO No.1452 of 1991. Baldev Raj ---Appellant. versus. Sat Parkash and others ..... Respondents. Present : Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with FAO No.1283 of 1991 2 Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. FAO No.1453 of 1991. Baldev Raj --- Appellant. versus. Ram Kali and others ..... Respondents. Present : Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondents. FAO No. 14 of 1992 Ram Kali and another ---Appellants. vs. Joginder Parkash and others ..... Respondents. Present : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with FAO No.1283 of 1991 3 Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. K.C.PURI. J. By this common order, I intend to dispose of FAO Nos. 1283 of 1991, 1452 of 1991, 1453 of 1991 and 14 of 1992, as all these appeals arise out of common award dated 18.9.1991, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. The brief facts of the case are that truck No. HRL-3695 in which Puran deceased was working as cleaner and Sat Parkash injured was travelling collided with truck No. HNQ-6267 on 24.1.1989 near Ganda Nala Pull on G.T. Road, Panipat. Puran died and Sat Parkash received injuries. Since Puran was un-married, his parents have claimed the compensation to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- and Sat Parkash had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of his own injuries from the drivers and owners of both the vehicles and also insurer of truck No. HNQ 6267 as the other truck in which they were travelling was not insured. According to the case of the claimants, in brief, on 24.1.1989 the claimant Sat Parkash was travelling in truck No. HRL-3695 being driven by Joginder s/o Sardara Singh, whereas Puran deceased being cleaner of that truck was sitting in it. It was going from Panipat to Gharaunda. When the truck reached near Ganda Nala on G.T. Road, Panipat another truck bearing registration No. HNQ 6267 being driven by Suresh Kumar driver rashly and negligently came from Karnal side (opposite side). He did not blow any FAO No.1283 of 1991 4 horn. The driver of the first truck, namely, Joginder was also driving his truck at a high speed. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The other claimants Ram Kali etc. also pleaded that it was a case of composite negligence. The claim petitions have been contested by all the respondents except driver Joginder Singh s/o Sardara Singh, who is being proceeded against ex parte. The factum of accident has not been disputed. In the written statements filed on behalf of the driver Suresh Kumar, owner Baldev Raj and insurer of truck No. HNQ 6267, it has been pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the other truck whereas in the written statement filed on behalf of the owner of truck No. HRL 3695 it was pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HNQ 6267. The claim petitions were also contested on the grounds of limitation, maintainability and locus standi. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether on 24.1.1989 in the area of Panipat injuries were caused to Sat Parkash claimant by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HNQ 6267 by Suresh Kumar, respondent No.2 as well as by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRL3695 driven by Joginder Singh, respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount the claimant is entitled to receive as compensation and from which of the respondents and to what extent? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner is within time? OPP. FAO No.1283 of 1991 5 4. Relief. In evidence the claimant Sat Parkash appeared as PW-1 and examined PW-2 Dr. K.L. Sachdeva, PW-3 Rajbir and claimant Ram Kali also appeared into the witness box as PW-1. The respondent-driver Suresh Kumar appeared as RW-1. The documents produced on the record are Ex. PA disability certificate, Ex. PB copy of First Information Report, Ex. PC copy of medico legal report, Ex. P1 to P-124 vouchers of medicines, Ex. R- 1 copy of driving licence of Suresh Kumar, Ex.R-2 copy of site plan and Ex.R-3 copy of insurance policy. After appraisal of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants holding respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of the said amount. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, appellants- claimants filed FAO No. 1281 of 1991 and FAO No. 14 of 1992 for enhancement of compensation amount whereas FAO No.1452 of 1991 and FAO No.1453 of 1991 have been filed by the owner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone thorough the records of the case. Learned counsel for the owner/appellant in case FAO No. 1452 of 1991 and FAO No.1453 of 1991 has contended that the trial Court has wrongly held that accident has taken place due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of the trucks. The FIR has been registered against Joginder Singh and as such the owner and driver of that trucks are liable. FAO No.1283 of 1991 6 On the other hand counsel for the claimants before the Tribunal now appellants in FAO No.1283 of 1991 and FAO No.14 of 1992 has submitted that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Suresh Kumar alone. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. This aspect of the case has been considered by the trial Court elaborately in paraghraph Nos.9 to 12 of its judgment. On re-appraisal of the evidence, no ground for interference is made out. Both the drivers of the vehicles were at fault and as such the findings of the trial Court on issue No.1 does not call for any interference and consequently the same stands affirmed. The other aspect of the case emphasized by both the parties is regarding quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. This aspect has been considered in the following paragraphs :- FAO No.1283 of 1991. In this case Sat Parkash received injuries due to the accident. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,44,340/- to Sat Parkash claimant as under :- i.) for loss of income Rs.1,38,240/- ; ii.) for services of attendant Rs. 57,600/- ; iii.) for medical expenses Rs. 8,500/- and iv.) for pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs.2,44,340/- As per finding of the Tribunal, Sat Parkash suffered 90% FAO No.1283 of 1991 7 disability due to para-plegia of both the lower limbs. The injured cannot stand and walk. The earning capacity has been assessed as Rs.800/- per month and 90% of the same has been calculated as Rs.720/- per month, by applying multiplier of 16, regarding the amount of loss of earning capacity, the amount stands calculated as Rs.1,38,240/- (720 x 12 x 16). The accident in this case has taken place on 24.1.1989. So, the income of Sat Parkash has to be taken as existing at that time. In my view the income of Sat Parkash should have been taken as that ofRs.900/-per month. Although in the case of Sat Parkash there is 90% disability but even according to the finding of the Tribunal he has suffered from para-plegia of both the lower limbs and he cannot stand and walk. So, his earning capacity for future has to be taken as nil. No person can earn any amount in such a condition. So, loss of income in this case has to be assessed as 100%. so the yearly loss comes to Rs.10,800/- (900x12). So, by applying the multiplier of 16, the amount comes to Rs.1,72,800/- on account of loss of future earning. An amount of Rs.40,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal on account of pain and sufferings, which also stands enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. For the services of the attendant, an amount of Rs.57,600/- has been granted by the Tribunal and that amount is also on lower side. So, on account of services, the amount stands enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, amount of medical expenses remains unchanged as Rs.8500/-. 1. loss of future income Rs.1,72,800/- ; 2. for services of attendant Rs. 1,00,000/- ; 3. for medical expenses Rs. 8,500/- ; FAO No.1283 of 1991 8 4. for pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-; 5. Special diet Rs. 3,000/- and 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-. Total Rs.3,44,300/- So, by rounding of the amount an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- more be paid along with interest @ 7% per from the date of appeal till realization of the amount. FAO No.14 of 1992 The Tribunal in this case has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.800/- per month. The dependency of the parents have been calculated @ 50% i.e. amounting to Rs.400/- and yearly dependency comes to Rs.4800/-. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal was 16 and as such the amount calculated was Rs.76,800/-. In this case, the claimants are parents and they have alleged that deceased was earning Rs.1000/- per month as driver. The amount calculated by the Tribunal in that case does not call for any interference. Consequently, the FAO No.14 of 1992 preferred by the claimants in respect of death of Puran Singh and FAO Nos 1452 and 1453 of 1991 preferred by owner are without any merit and the same stand dismissed. However, the appeal No.1283 of 1991 preferred by Sat Parkash stands partly accepted and the respondents are directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with awarded amount by the Tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of appeal till the final payment. FAO No.1283 of 1991 9 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE March 31st , 2010 sv