FAO No.384 of 1988 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO No.384 of 1988 (O&M) and Cross-Objection No.29-CII of 1989 Date of Decision 22.10.2009 United India Insurance Company Limited, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Meena Katyal and others ...... Respondents (ii) FAO No.180 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision 22.10.2009 Ishwar Devi (deceased) through L.Rs ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Meena Katyal and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company. Mr.H.N.Mentani, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 5. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This order of mine shall dispose of aforesaid appeals i.e. FAO Nos.180 and 384 of 1988 and cross objection petition against the award dated 16.10.1997, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'). Arguments heard. Record perused. A sum of Rs.5,76,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum was awarded in favour of Meena Katyal claimant-respondent (herein referred as 'the claimant') in M.A.C.T. Case No.16 of 17.12.1985 on account of the death of her husband Jatinder FAO No.384 of 1988 (O&M) 2 Katyal. Similarly, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded to her in M.A.C.T. Case No.17 of 17.12.1985 on account of the death of her seven months old daughter Milli in a motor vehicular accident. Both the claim petitions, as preferred by the claimant were contested by the appellant-Insurance Company and respondents No.2 to 4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the petitioner and respondent No.5 Ishwar Devi are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased? OPP 2. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Subash Singh-respondent No.1 ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was holding valid driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle in question ? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner and respondent No.5 are entitled to compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ? OPP 5. Relief. The Tribunal, while holding respondent-Driver Subash Singh as negligent, held the appellant and respondents No.2 to 4 as liable to pay the compensation. Ishwar Devi, one of the respondent, being mother and a legal representative of Jatinder Katyal (deceased) also filed the cross objection petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that Ishwar Devi has already expired and Sh.Kailash Katyal has been impleaded as her legal representative. Having scrutinizing the evidence as well as the award, it transpires that the Tribunal has rightly settled the issues as framed by it and reached the conclusion that Subash Singh while driving the offending bus when reached near Kala Bakra, the flow of water was very fast and several other buses were parked near the flow of water. Despite that Subash Singh continued to drive. Resultantly, the bus fell into the ditches and tilted on one side causing the death of some passengers including the husband and daughter of the claimant. The claimant while appearing in the witness box corroborated the said version. She also stated that when the bus reached FAO No.384 of 1988 (O&M) 3 near Kala Bakra there was lot of water on the road, resultantly, several vehicles were standard. Despite the resistance made by the passengers travelling in the bus, the driver Subash Singh did not stop the bus, therefore, on account of his negligence, the incident took place. As regards the quantum, it appears that the Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence including the age, occupation, multiplier and the other pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant, awarded adequate compensation. As regards the objection petition preferred by Ishwar Devi, the main question to determine is whether Ishwar Devi was dependent on the deceased and whether she suffered any pecuniary loss on the death of her son. Meena Katyal while appearing in the witness box proved the income of Ishwar Devi by stating that her father-in-law had retired from Ministry of Defence and thereafter he had been practising as a Homeopath doctor and was supporting his wife. As such, Ishwar Devi was never dependent upon her son, but to the contrary, Ishwar Devi has stated that deceased was supporting her. Records reveal that husband of Ishwar Devi had retired as Under Secretary from Government of India in the year 1982. He had received a sum of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.82,000/- at that time including commutation of 1/3rd of pension as per rules and he was drawing pension of Rs.1000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal appears to have reached the right conclusion that since Ishwar Devi was not dependent upon her son Jatinder Katyal, therefore, she, being not sufferer on the death of Jatinder Katyal, is certainly not entitled to any compensation. Resultantly, without enhancing any compensation as well as while holding that insurance company as well as driver and owner were liable to pay compensation jointly and severally and also observing that Ishwar Devi, being maintained by her husband, was not entitled to receive any compensation, both the appeals and the objection petition are dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.10.2009 mamta-II