IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No. 949 of 1986 Smt.Anguri Devi and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Suvir Sheokand, Advocate for Shri Bhoop Singh, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.2 through Nemo. (2) F.A.O. No. 136 of 1987 Gobinder Singh. ....... Appellant through Nemo. Versus Smt.Anguri Devi and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 4 through Shri Suvir Sheokand,Advocate for Shri Bhoop Singh, Advocate. Respondent no.5 through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -2- .... (3) F.A.O. No. 137 of 1987 Gobinder Singh. ....... Appellant through Nemo. Versus Smt.Anguri Devi and others. (Names of the respondents-claimants have been wrongly mentioned as the same should have been Mrs.Mohindero and four others) ....... Respondents-claimants through Shri Neeraj Khanna Advocate. Respondent-State of Haryana through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. (4) F.A.O. No. 13 of 1987 Mrs.Mohindero and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate. Versus Haryana State and others. ....... Respondent nos.1 & 2 through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.3 through Nemo. Date of Decision: 22.10.2008 F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -3- .... CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned four appeals which have been preferred against common award dated 30.9.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.15 of 8.10.1984 – Smt.Anguri Devi and others Versus State of Haryana & others and M.A.C.T. Case No. 16 of 2.8.1986 – Mrs.Mohindero and others Versus The Haryana State and others. Two persons, namely, Balraj Singh and Rajinder Singh died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 3.4.1984. Gobinder Singh, driver of the offending jeep bearing registration No.HRE 1377 is said to have caused the accident allegedly when he had been instructed by Shri Mukhtiar Masih, Deputy Director, Horticulture Department, Haryana, to go and park the vehicle after he was dropped at the Canal Rest House, Jind. After appraisal of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that indeed, the accident had been caused by the driver of the offending jeep, but while determining the liability, absolved the State of Haryana on the ground that the accident had been caused while the driver had acted beyond the course of his employment. F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -4- .... The Tribunal, after absolving the State of Haryana of its liability, determined the compensation as follows:- (i)In the case of death of Balraj Singh, aged 23 years where the claim petition was filed by the widow, three minor children and mother, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.1091.20 per month as the deceased was working as Junior Engineer in the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and was drawing the same salary. The monthly dependency of the claimants was fixed at Rs.600/-, i.e., Rs.7200/- per annum. A multiplier of `16' was applied to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,15,200/- which was allowed as compensation to the claimants-Smt.Mohindero and others. (ii) In the case of deceased-Rajinder Singh where the claimants were his widow, two minor sons and one minor daughter, the Tribunal assessed his annual income at Rs.12000/-, i.e., Rs.1000/- per month as he was stated to be a private contractor and there was no proof of his income. The monthly dependency of the claimants was fixed at Rs.600/- per month, i.e., Rs.7200/- per annum. While applying a multiplier of `16', the compensation was assessed at Rs.1,15,200/-. In view of its finding on the issue of liability to make the payment of the compensation, the Tribunal directed the driver of the offending vehicle to pay the aforementioned F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -5- .... compensation to the claimants in both the cases. In addition to the above compensation, the Tribunal also allowed a sum of Rs.15000/- in each case under `no fault liability' and directed the State of Haryana to make the payment thereof. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have filed F.A.O. Nos.949 of 1986 and 13 of 1987 for enhancement of compensation, whereas the driver has filed F.A.O. Nos. 136 and 137 of 1987. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.O.No.13 of 1987 contended that apart from the fact that the compensation awarded to the claimants is inadequate, the finding returned by the Tribunal on the issue of liability is also erroneous. It was contended with reference to the evidence on record that the offending jeep was being driven when the Deputy Director after having been dropped at Canal Rest House had authorised the driver to take it for parking at a place which was one kilometer away and it was thereafter that the driver of the vehicle had abused the instructions given to him and drove it away unauthorisedly and caused the accident. He further contended that regardless of the aforesaid fact, even if it is accepted that the vehicle was driven contrary to the instructions given by the Deputy Director, even then the State of Haryana cannot be absolved of its liability to satisfy the award as concededly, the officer concerned was on official F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -6- .... tour and merely because the driven chose to drive the vehicle contrary to the instructions given to him or without his implied or tacit consent, it does not mean that the employer, i.e. the State of Haryana, can be absolved of its liability. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others Versus Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others, AIR 1995 S.C. 2499, wherein it was held as under:- “In the instant case the day of the accident was the year ending day i.e. 31.3.1980 and the clerks and officers were required to work during night time. The direction had been given by the in- charge of the office, that after normal working hours of the office, the employes gone to their homes were required to come back after taking dinner. The jeep was used for bringing such employees to the office. In this background, it could be said that jeep was being used in connection with the affairs of the State and for official purpose. The respondent who was the clerk in the office was driving the vehicle at relevant time under the authority of the driver who was in-charge of the said vehicle and as the driver had consumed more liquor on that day he permitted respondent to drive the vehicle that night. Thus, the facts disclose and demonstrate that an authorised act was being done in an unauthorised manner. The accident took place when the act authorised was being performed in a mode which may not be proper but nonetheless it was directly connected with `in F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -7- .... the course of employment' -- it was not an independent act for a purpose or business which had no nexus or connection with the business of the State Government so as to absolve the appellant-State from the liability.” Further reliance was placed on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Pirthi Singh and another Versus Binda Ram and others, AIR 1987 P&H 56, wherein it was held as under:- “The vicarious liability of the master does not depend on the lawful or unlawful nature of the acts of the servant and the master would be liable for the alleged act of the servant which had taken place in the course of his employment even though the servant may have acted in contravention of some of the provisions of the statute or the Rules made thereunder. It follows that in a motor accident case the determining factor so far as the liability of the owner is concerned is whether the act was committed by the driver in the course of his employment or not. If the driver was acting in the course of his employment then the owner would be liable even though he acted against the express instructions of the owner or in violation of the Rules framed under the statute. Thus simply because the driver of the truck carried the deceased as passenger in the truck in contravention of the provisions of R.4.60, Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules,1940, the owner of the truck cannot be absolved of his vicarious liability.” F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -8- .... Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that the same merit acceptance. In my opinion, even if the case of the State is accepted, the Deputy Director was certainly on an official visit to Jind and had authorised the driver to take the jeep away from his control to park it at a place elsewhere. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was no parking place in the Canal Rest House and as to why the driver was directed to park the jeep elsewhere. In any eventuality, the vehicle was certainly under the use and control of the officer concerned who was on official trip to Jind. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court, which has been extracted above, there is little hesitation to hold that the driver was driving the offending jeep in the course of his employment and the State of Haryana, i.e., his employer, cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is set aside and it is held that the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants shall be that of the State of Haryana. In so far as the amount of compensation payable to the legal heirs of deceased-Balraj Singh is concerned, there is evidence on record to establish that he was working as a Junior Engineer in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and was drawing salary of Rs.1091.20 per month. In a case where the deceased is in regular employment, it is expected that by passage of time, he would certainly earn his due promotion and his pay obviously would go upward correspondingly. The future F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -9- .... prospects of the deceased in such like case have to be taken into consideration while assessing compensation. The principle to assess the income of a deceased by taking future prospects into consideration is that the salary which was being drawn by the person concerned should be doubled and added to the salary being drawn and then average of the total should be taken as his monthly income. In this manner, the income of the deceased-Balraj Singh is assessed at Rs.1636.80 per month, which, when rounded off comes to Rs.1640/- [ Rs.1091.20 (+) Rs.2182.40 (-) 2]. At the time of death of Balraj Singh, he was 23 yeas old and was survived by his widow, three minor children and mother. Therefore, the amount to be deducted on account of his personal expenses should be 1/4th. In this way, the dependency works out to Rs.1230/- per month, i.e., Rs.14760/- per annum. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which is a guiding factor, the multiplier of `17' ought to have been applied. Consequently, the compensation payable to the claimants- Smt.Mohindero and others works out to Rs.2,50,920/-. Rs.20000/- are further awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. Thus, Smt.Mohindero and others are held entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.2,70,920/-. As regards the compensation awarded for the death of Rajinder F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -10- .... Singh, I am of the view that the same is also on the lower side. He was survived by his widow and three minor children. Although he was stated to be working as a contractor and was earning Rs.5000/- per month, yet, there was no concrete evidence on record to establish the same. The Tribunal had assessed his income as Rs.1000/- per month, which, in my view, is just and appropriate. However, the dependency of the claimants as assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect. Even if it is assumed that he was spending 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses, even then the dependency comes to Rs.667/- per month, which is rounded off to Rs.670/-, i.e., Rs.8040/- per annum. In my opinion, the multiplier of `16' applied by the Tribunal was right. In this way, the compensation payable to Smt.Anguri Devi and others works out to Rs.1,28,640/-. Rs.20,000/- are awarded as funeral expenses and on account of loss of estate etc. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants- Smt.Anguri Devi and others comes to Rs.1,48,640/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petitions till the date of realisation. As held above, the liability to pay the compensation and interest shall be that of the State of Haryana. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. F.A.O.No.949 of 1986 -11- .... In the result, the appeals of the claimants as well as those of the driver are disposed of in the aforementioned terms. October 22,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge