IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5548 of 2006 Date of Decision : March 12, 2010 National Insurance Co. Limited ....Appellant Versus Bachni Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. Award delivered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, while granting a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to respondents No.1 and 6 as compensation, a sum of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 as loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.2,200/- as costs, stands challenged in the present appeal filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 being the widow and respondents No.2 to 4 being the children of deceased Satish Kumar sought an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for themselves and respondent No.6 being mother of the deceased on account of his death in a roadside accident caused by respondent No.5 while driving an oil tanker bearing registration No. PB-13-B-9005 in a rash and negligent manner. It was pleaded in the FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -2- claim petition that on 26.11.2003 at about 7.35 a.m., deceased Satish Kumar was standing at Shivpuri Chowk, Ludhiana and reading a newspaper. Suddenly, the offending oil tanker driven by respondent- Karam Singh rashly and negligently came towards the deceased and struck against him. As a result, the deceased received multiple injuries and died at the spot. Regarding the accident, FIR No. 295 dated 26.11.2003 was registered against respondent-Karam Singh at Police Station Salem Tabri. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was spent on the cremation and last rites of the deceased. The deceased was in perfectly good health before the accident. He was aged 45 years and was intelligent, hard working and enterprising person. He was contractor in hosiery units at Ludhiana and used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- per month. His entire family was dependent upon him. Two sons of the deceased were school going and the deceased used to pay the school fee and other expenses. He also used to financially help his married daughter occasionally. After the death of the deceased, his entire family became destitute and was facing every hardship of life. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent- Karam Singh and insured with appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. In his written statement, respondent-Karam Singh admitted that the accident had taken place but the same occurred on account of mechanical failure of brakes of the tanker. There was no rashness or negligent on his part. Therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -3- Similarly, in the written statement filed by appellant-insurer, it was pleaded that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties; the claimants were neither the legal heirs nor the dependents of the deceased; and respondent-Karam Singh did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. The offending vehicle was not having valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident and was being driven against the terms and conditions of insurance policy and in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. All defences under Sections 147/157/170 of the Motor Vehicles Act were taken besides, reserving its right to amend the written statement or to file additional written statement on disclosure of new facts. Upon merits, it was pleaded that no accident took place as alleged. The claimants were not entitled to any compensation. The claim petition had been filed in collusion with the other respondents. The amount claimed was too excessive and arbitrary one. All other averments made in the claim petition were denied and, accordingly, a prayer made for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No.6, i.e. mother of the deceased admitted the claim of respondents No.1 to 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- i) Whether Satish Kumar died in a motor vehicular FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -4- accident due to rash and negligent driving of tanker No. PB-13B-9005 by respondent No.1?OPP ii) Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties?OPR. iii) Whether the claimants are neither the legal representatives nor dependents upon the deceased?OPR. iv) Whether respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR. v) To what amount and from whom, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation?OPP. vi) Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the file of the case, learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker by Karam Singh-respondent. Issues regarding claim petition being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and the status of the claimants, were decided against the Insurance Company as no evidence was led upon these issues. The driving licence, photocopy of which was brought on record as Ex.R1 by respondent-Karam Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, was shown to have been renewed from Bathinda from 12.6.1998 to 11.6.2001 and then from 20.9.2001 to 19.9.2004. It was held that at the time of accident, respondent-Karam Singh was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month after presuming him as a daily labourer. After FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -5- leaving 1/3rd of the assessed monthly income which the deceased might be spending upon himself, the dependency was calculated at Rs.1,665/- per month or Rs.19,980/- per annum, which was rounded off to Rs.20,000/- per annum. Deceased Satish Kumar was 50 years of age as stated by his wife Bachni Devi, although in the post mortem report his age was recorded as 52 years. Accordingly, multiplier of 11 was applied so as to grant an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as compensation. Out of the awarded amount, respondent No.1 being the widow of the deceased was held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- while respondent No.6, who was mother of the deceased, was granted an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Besides, various amounts, as mentioned above, were also granted for loss of consortium, funeral expenses and costs of the claim petition. Respondent-Karam Singh, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and appellant- Insurance Company, being the insurer of the said vehicle were made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation subject to the indemnity clauses of Insurance Policy Cover Ex.R3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award besides, going through the evidence available on the record. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the driving licence, photocopy of which was produced by Karam Singh-driver, was sought to be verified from Raipur from where the same was alleged to have been issued. As per verification, no such licence had been issued from FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -6- Raipur. The licence in question had been initially issued from Raipur (M.P.). As per report Ex.R10 issued by the Licencing Authority, Raipur, the original record for issuing the driving licence in favour of Karam Singh driver had been destroyed. Even as per report Ex.R11 made by the Investigator, the original record of issuance of licence in question had been destroyed. Under these circumstances, reports Ex.R13, R14 and R15 relied upon by the Insurance Company that no such driving licence had been issued in the name of Karam Singh from Raipur cannot be given any weightage. It also stands established from the report Ex.R8 made by the Investigator that the licence in question had been renewed by the District Transport Officer, Bathinda vide entry No. 8419/Bti with validity from 20.9.2001 to 19.9.2004. Further, from the verification reports Exs.R5 and R7 issued by the Licencing Authority, Bathinda, the driving licence in question had been renewed in the name of Karam Singh. In view of the above, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. From the testimony of PW1 Inderjit Singh, it stands established that the offending tanker was being driven by Karam Singh- respondent in a rash and negligent manner and it struck against deceased Satish Kumar, who was reading newspaper near a newspaper vend on a kacha path as a result whereof Satish Kumar received injuries and died at the spot. One Girdhari Lal, newspaper vendor and one woman sitting at a FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -7- nearby khokha also sustained injuries. On the basis of a statement made by injured Girdhari Lal, FIR No. 295 dated 26.11.2003 was registered at Police Station Salem Tabri against respondent-Karam Singh. Though Karam Singh, driver had pleaded that he was not rash or negligent in driving the tanker and it was on account of failure of brakes that the accident occurred yet he did not examine any mechanic to establish that there was infact a failure of brakes at the time of accident. As such, learned Tribunal was justified in holding that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Karam Singh that the accident had taken place as a result of which Satish Kumar died. Though the deceased was claimed to be a contractor in hosiery units yet he was taken as a labourer and his income assessed as Rs.2,500/- per month. Out of the said amount, 2/3rd was considered to be the dependency. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 11 was rightly applied by the learned Tribunal so as to grant an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as compensation to be shared by the widow and mother of the deceased. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned award. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. FAO No. 5548 of 2006 -8- ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 12, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1