FAO No.1896 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1896 of 2011 in MACT case No. 199 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.11.2011 Smt. Suman Gupta and Anr. Appellants v. Rajbir Singh and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Ajay Gulati, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants against the Award dated 16.11.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Karnal (for short the Tribunal). The claimants- Smt. Suman Gupta, wife and Ms. Shiva Gupta,daughter of Tirlok Nath deceased filed claim petition No. 199 of 2009 under sections 166/140/141 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)claiming compensation on account of death of Tirlok Nath in a motor vehicular accident. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.1.2009, claimant Suman Gupta alongwith her husband Tirlok Nath, Som Parkash Bansal and Murti Devi were going from Karnal to Saharanpur in a car bearing registration No. HR-05H-5253. The car was driven by Vinod Kumar (since deceased).When FAO No.1896 of 2011 2 they reached in the area of Police Station, Kutumbsher, District Saharanpur, a bus bearing registration No. HR-58-8959 driven by Rajbir Singh, respondent No.1, in rash and negligent manner hit the car. Vinod Kumar driver of the car succumbed to the injuries on 18.1.2009. Suman Gupta, Som Parkash Bansal and Murti Devi received grievous injuries and were admitted in S.B.D District Hospital, Saharanpur. Later on Suman Gupta and Tirlok Nath were shifted to Karnal and they got treatment in City Orthopaedic Hospital, Karnal. Tirlok Nath succumbed to the injuries on 20.1.2009. FIR No. 16 dated 18.1.2009 under sections 279/338 and 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Kutumbsher, District Saharanpur. It was alleged by the claimants that the accident took place due to the negligence and rash driving of respondent No.1. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed alleging false implication of respondent No.1 in the alleged accident. It was pleaded that forged FIR has been lodged to claim false compensation. Respondents No. 2 & 3 denied the alleged accident and pleaded that a false case has been registered against the driver of the Bus to claim compensation. It was further pleaded that it was the fault of the driver of car, who was rash and negligent and came with a high speed from the petrol pump to the road and struck against the left side of the bus. It was pleaded that the Bus was insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, the Insurance Company denied the claim of the claimants pleading it to be false and concocted story of accident. It was alleged that the driver of the Bus was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the bus was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. FAO No.1896 of 2011 3 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were raised: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 18.1.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No. HR-58-8959 by respondent No.1 Rajbir Singh in which Suman Gupta, Vinod Kumar and Tirlok Nath sustained injuries and Vinod Kumar and Tirlok Nath succumbed to their injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 in proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR3 4. Relief.” After appreciation of entire evidence on record and by applying the guidelines framed in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009(6) SCC 121, the Ld. Tribunal accepted the claim petition of the claimants and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,81,482/- vide Award dated 16.11.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,81,482/- to Smt. Suman Gupta, wife and Ms. Shiva Gupta, daughter of deceased Tirlok Nath and based its findings on surmises and conjectures. The multiplier applied is also on the lower side. He further submitted that FAO No.1896 of 2011 4 the Ld. Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount towards funeral and other charges and that no compensation towards loss of consortium was awarded to Smt. Suman Gupta, widow of deceased Tirlok Nath. A perusal of the Award dated 16.11.2010 shows that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased Tirlok Nath to be Rs.3900/- per month. As per Smt. Suman Gupta, PW1, Tirlok Nath was a photographer and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. There is no documentary proof to substantiate her version. Therefore, the Ld. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3900/- per month and rightly applied the multiplier of 5 keeping in view the age of the deceased Tirlok Nath as 70 years at the time of accident. However, the Ld. Tribunal has awarded lesser amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral and transportation charges of deceased and has not granted any amount towards loss of consortium to the widow Smt Suman Gupta. This Court feels that the ends of justice would be met if a further amount of Rs. 20,000/- is granted to Smt. Suman Gupta towards all conventional heads. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the Award dated 16.11.2010 is modified to the extent above. The amount of Rs. 20,000/ shall be paid to the appellants in equal shares within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal, till its realization. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 18.11.2011 JUDGE MS