F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. Date of decision:12-5-2008 Jiwan Wanti and another. ...Appellants. Versus Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation and others. ` ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Ajit Atri Advocate for Mr.Ashit Malik Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Walia, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Ahluwalia Advocate for the respondents. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded on account of death of Surinder Kumar, deceased in a motor vehicle accident, the claimants have filed this appeal in this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.1994, Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar were going from Karnal to Shimla to F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. -2- celebrate New Year at that place, by Maruti Van No. CHM-9501 being driven by Surinder Kumar at a normal speed on its proper left hand side and when after crossing Shahbad, the Van had hardly covered three Kilometres, suddenly from the opposite side, Punjab Roadways Bus No.PB-11-C-9516 came driven by its driver Jagtar Singh, respondent, rashly, carelessly and negligently and by coming on the wrong side, the bus struck against the Van and as a consequence of the heavy impact, the Van was smashed completely. Surinder Kumar died at the spot whereas Pawan Kumar received multiple grievous injuries. As a result of collision, the bus also turned turtle with its wheels towards the sky. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of their son Surinder Kumar. They pleaded that at the time of death, said Surinder Kumar was aged 25/26 years. He was running whole-sale tyre business in the name and style of M/s S.K. Tyres Workshop No.18, Dyal Singh College Road, Karnal and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He was unmarried. Regarding this accident, criminal case bearing FIR No.315 dated 30.12.1994, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Shahbad. They further pleaded that Rs.25,000/- were spent on shifting the dead body from one place to another and on last rites. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents. In the written statement, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 took preliminary F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. -3- objections that the claim petition was bad on account of non-joinder of owner and insurer of Maruti van; that the Tribunal at Karnal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition and that the accident took place due to sole negligence of deceased Surinder Kumar. On merits, it has been pleaded that deceased Surinder Kumar, used to run only a tyre-puncture shop and was not earning anything. In fact, he was a known gambler and drunkard and on that count he was not married. Jagtar Singh, driver of the bus also filed separate written statement, pleading that the accident took place due to negligence of driver of Maruti Van and further that there was a truck ahead of Maruti Van. The Van driver tried to over-take the truck and in his attempt, he came on the wrong side and struck against the bus which was on its proper left hand side of the road. The Insurance Company also denied its liability to pay compensation for damage to the Van. In fact, three claim petitions were filed which were consolidated and the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether accident took place on account of rash, careless and negligent driving of bus No.PB-11-C-9516 by respondent No.3 Jagtar Singh and in that accident, Surinder Kumar lost his life, Pawan Kumar received injuries and F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. -4- Maruti Van No. CHM-9501 was damaged?OPP. 2. Whether the Van driver was himself negligent in causing the accident. If so, to what effect ?OPR. 3. Whether the claim petitions are bad on account of non- joinder of owner and insurer of Maruti Van?OPR. 4. Whether the Tribunal at Karnal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim petitions? OPR. 5. How much compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP. 6. Relief. On issue Nos.1 and 2, the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of bus driver Jagtar Singh. Under issue No.5, the Tribunal held the dependency of the claimants on Surinder Kumar, deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month i.e. Rs.12,000/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 10, the claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, vide award dated 14.11.1996, passed by the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. The claimants were also held entitled to costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of presentation of the claim petition till recovery. The respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed the instant appeal. F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. -5- I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation. On 19.3.2001, the matter was put up before the Lok Adalat and the learned Lok Adalat, after relying upon authority reported as Kader Kunju and another v. Maheswaran Pada Nair and others, (2000-3) Punjab Law Reporter 492 assessed compensation at Rs.1,92,000/- by applying a multiplier of 16 (1000 x 12 x 16) and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- was allowed on account of funeral expenses, but, that order was set aside on 14.7.2005 by this Court as the respondents have not agreed to the settlement. The counsel for the appellants has again relied upon the said authority for enhancement of compensation. I have gone through that ruling. In that case, the parents of the deceased were 47 and 45 years and on that count, a multiplier of 16 was held to be applicable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, the income of deceased has been assessed at Rs.1,500/- per month and 1/3rd amount has been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants has been assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month i.e. Rs.12,000/- per annum. The age of the father of the deceased has been mentioned as 52/53 years in his statement. So, keeping in view the authority reported as Kader Kunju and another (supra), I am of the view that multiplier of 14 should be made applicable. Therefore, the amount of compensation comes to F.A.O.No.554 of 1997. -6- Rs.1,68,000/-. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs.5,000/- on account of funeral expenses. The claimants have also produced some medical bills in respect of treatment of deceased. Taking into consideration those bills, the claimants are held entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,000/- on account of medical and transportation of the deceased for treatment etc. Hence, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,75,000/- in all. So far as enhanced amount of Rs.55,000/- as assessed by this Court is concerned, the claimants shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. Consequently, the appeal is partly accepted. The claimants are held entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. In case the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not paid to the claimants, in that case, that amount would carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The liability of the respondents will be the same as assessed by the Tribunal. May 12 ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge