FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT,AT CHANDIGARH. Decided on May 26,2008 Satbir alias Lilu- Appellants. vs. Naurangi and others -- Respondents. AND FAO No. 466 of 1987 and Cross Objection No.49-CII of 1987 Decided on May 26 ,2008 Balwant Singh Appellants. vs. Naurangi and others -- Respondents. Present: Ms. Pooja Satija,Advocate, for the appellant (Satbir) Mr. P.K.Longia,Advocate,for the respondents/claimants Rakesh Kumar Jain, J : This order shall dispose of F.A.O. No.451 of 1987 filed by Satbir and Cross Objection No.50-CII of 1987 filed by Naurangi etc and F.A.O.No. 466 of 1987 filed by Balwant Singh and Cross Objection No.49- FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 2 CII of 1987 filed by Naurangi etc. as the aforesaid matters have arisen from the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV,Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated January 28,1987, vide which Claim Petition No. 4 of March 14,1986 filed by Naurangi and others against Satbir and others and Claim Petition No.3 of March 14, 1986 filed by Rattan Singh and another against Satbir alias Lilu and others, have been allowed and the drivers of both the offending Tractors have been held liable and the claimants have been awarded Rs. 28,800/- as compensation , out of which in claim petition No. 4 of 1986, Smt. Naurangi has been awarded Rs. 10,000/-, Lal Singh, Parmod minor sons and Sunita, minor daughter of Jagdish have been awarded Rs.10,000/- and in claim petition No.3 of 1986, both Rattan Singh and Smt. Chhano Devi have been awarded Rs. 8800/-besides interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the date of realization to be borne equally by respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Since respondent No.1 Satbir who is both driver and owner of Tractor Escort-335 and respondent No.4 Balwant Singh is the owner of Tractor No.HRO-2294, have been made liable to pay the amount of compensation, therefore, both of them have preferred the aforesaid appeals. The facts are being taken from FAO No.451 of 1987, which briefly are that on May 11,1985, at about 9.30.a.m, Jagdish since deceased along-with Chattar Singh- PW 5 was going from village Phoolpura to village Chandi while sitting on a Tractor bearing registration No. HRO- 2294,driven by Ram Phal since deceased. When the Tractor reached near FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 3 petrol pump of village Lakhan-Majra, another Tractor Escort-335 driven by Satbir respondent No.1 came behind. Both the Tractors were going on the main road in the same direction towards village Chandi . Both the Tractors were going side by side . When the Tractors crossed bus stand of village Chandi and were about four killas away from Lakhan Majra, then Satbir tried to over take Tractor No. HRO-2294 and in that process, left side of Tractor No.335 struck against the right side of Tractor No. HRO- 2294, as a result of which, Tractor No. HRO-2294 turned turtle on the left side of the road. Consequently, Jagdish occupant and Ram Phal, driver of Tractor No HRO-2294 died on the spot, while Chattar Singh, another occupant of that Tractor received injuries. Due to death of Jagdish in the accident, his widow Smt. Naurangi and minor children preferred claim petition No.4 of 1986 claiming Rs. 3 lacs whereas parents of Jagdish filed a separate claim petition No.3 of 1986 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation on account of his death. Besides negligence part, the claimants have alleged that Jagdish deceased was 32 years of age at the time of his death and was a skilled labourer doing the work of mistri (khati) and was employed as a Munshi in the firm of Ashok Kumar- Ashwani Kumar. It was alleged that his monthly income was Rs. 1500/-. His income from agricultural land was Rs.3000/- per annum and by doing multi-purpose work, his total income was alleged to be Rs. 2500/- p.m. Both respondent Nos.1 and 4 i.e. Satbir and Balwant Singh filed their separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition about the manner of accident. It was alleged by respondent FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 4 No.1. that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor No.HRO-2294 by Ram Phal, who had himself died in the accident and also that Ram Phal did not possess a valid driving license. Respondent No.4 Balwant Singh alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor Escort-335 by Satbir. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, that was also denied as pleaded by the claimants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractors bearing Nos. 335/M/1983 and HRO-2294,owned and driven by Satbir and Balwant Singh- respectively ? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief: The Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 had taken into account the entire evidence available on file both oral as well as documentary and found that both the drivers of the Tractors were equally negligent,therefore, both were held responsible for causing the accident. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, it was found that father of Jagdish had stated that they have no agriculture income ,therefore, question of agricultural income does not arise. It was also not believed if Jagdish was a skilled mistri by profession, then how he was working as Munshi with Ashok Kumar-Ashwani Kumar contractors. The Tribunal has found that there was a great discrepancy between the pleadings and the evidence FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 5 brought on the record so far as income of the deceased is concerned , as such deceased Jagdish was found to be merely a casual labourer and his income was assessed @ Rs. 300/- p.m. By applying a multiplier of 12 to the annual income of Rs. 2400/-, a sum of Rs. 28,800/- was assessed as compensation which has been awarded to the claimants in both the claim petitions. Ms. Pooja Satija, counsel for the appellant appearing on behalf of appellant Satbir has argued that the Tribunal has committed an error by holding the appellant responsible for the accident inspite of the fact that the driver of Tractor No. HRO-2294 Ram Phal,who had himself died in the accident was not holding a valid driving license as the same was not produced on the record. It was further argued that the entire liability should have been fixed upon respondent No.4 Balwant Singh, owner of the Tractor in respect of the amount of compensation. Although, this arguments appears to be attractive but has no substance in it, because in the cross examination of PW-5 Chattar Singh, who had received injuries and was a star witness in respect of this accident, it has come on record that both the Tractors had left petrol pump at one and the same time, it finds mention in the copy of FIR Ex.PA which was recorded on the statement of PW-5 that both the Tractors were running on the road side by side. Obviously, none of the driver of the tractor took due care and caution, which could have averted the accident, because had one of the Tractors drivers taken due care and allowed the other to pass FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 6 or over take, certainly mishap could have been averted. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that both the Tractor drivers were negligent and rash which has caused the accident in which Jagdish had to loose his life besides the death of Ram Phal, who was driving Tractor No. HRO- 2294. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard does not call for any interference. Secondly, the claimants have filed Cross Objections in both the appeals for the purposes of further enhancement of compensation on the ground that not only income has been wrongly assessed but also multiplier of 12 has been inadequately applied in view of the second schedule appended with the Act. Counsel for the claimants has further vehemently argued, for reassessment of the income of the deceased, but has miserably failed to refer to the evidence which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal or has been misread. Therefore, so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, that has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. However, in my opinion, multiplier has been inadequately applied because admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was between 30 to 32 years and according to the Second Schedule appended with the Act, for the age was between 30 to 35 years, appropriate multiplier is 17, therefore, claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2400X 17 which comes to Rs. 40,800/-. FAO No. 451 of 1987 and X-Objection 50CII of 1987 7 In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are hereby dismissed and Cross Objections in both the appeals are allowed with costs. The claimants are now held entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,800/- which means another sum of Rs. 12,000/- has been enhanced. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the date of its realization. May 26,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge