F.A.O.NO. 206 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 206 OF 1993 Date of decision:11th October, 2010 Parkash Kaur Bandol and others .......Appellants Versus Harbhajan Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr K.V.S.Kang, Advocate, Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. T.V.S.Lehal, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate, for Mr. J.B.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the claimants, whose petition had been dismissed. The contention was that the deceased was a Veterinary Doctor with Civil Veterinary Hospital at Nabha. He was driving his own car and the accident occurred when the insured's bus was coming from the opposite side and car dashed against the car. He was sole passenger in the car and therefore, details of the accident were sought to be explained through two persons who were said to have been witnesses of the accident as they were F.A.O.NO. 206 OF 1993 2 sitting in a truck close approximate to the place of accident. In this case, the driver was examined to say that the deceased vehicle was over taking the bus and accident took place at a time when there was thick fog and the disability was poor. According to the driver of the bus, the accident took place only on account of negligence of the deceased. The Court reasoned that their names were not found in the DDR and they were all brought as witnesses to give false evidence. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 2. In a case of death on a road where the involvement of the vehicle itself is not denied and the impact was so severe that the person had died at the spot, I cannot accede to the evidence stated in defence that he was carefully driving when the accident took place only by the other vehicle which was driven by the deceased. The only fact that the police had not recorded the statements of two witnesses, cannot be a ground to totally discard their versions. If they were able to give the particulars of the accident in a graphic fashion at the trial, the rejection of the evidence of the two witnesses in my view was wrong and I would find the accident has resulted only by the negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I therefore, reverse the finding given by the Tribunal that there was no negligence establish at the trial. It is also be noticed that the standard of proof that is necessary for making a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not extracting standards beyond reasonable doubt but its only the preponderance of probabilities. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Kaushnuma Begum and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (2001) 1 SCC 155 that a strict liability norm has to be applied in cases of deaths resulting by motor accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the situation of the bursting of a tyre of a vehicle that F.A.O.NO. 206 OF 1993 3 caused the accident, involving the death of another person. The finding that there was no negligence of the driver at the trial for rejection of the claim was set aside and the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that the principle of law laid down in Rylands vs. Fletcher (1861) A11 ER 1 must be invoked to such situations. In a case of collision, it could never be urged that one vehicle was very careful and the other vehicle was only negligent driver. It is impossible to plead for a situation of someone carefully driving his vehilce to kill another person. There must be a responsibility for the death of a person in a motor accident and if the death had occurred by collision with another motor vehicle, I would always hold that there was element of negligence which could not be diluted by mere puffing up the version at the trial. 3. The Tribunal has not assessed the compensation at all and while under circumstances I am not inclined to refer the matter to the Tribunal again, I see that such an exercise would be futile time consuming and oppresive. The accident took place in the year 1985. I proceed to therefore, examine the issue of quantum from the evidence adduced. The deceased was a Veterinary Doctor whose salary certificate had been produced in Court. His salary certificate showed his income as Rs. 2,140/-. It is impossible to visualise a situation of a Veterinary Doctor being paid only Rs. 2,140/- in these days. He was aged 33 years and he had more 30 years of service at the time of death. I would take his salary at Rs. 4,000/-, provide for F.A.O.NO. 206 OF 1993 4 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and take the contribution to Rs. 3,000/- towards the family contribution and the annual contribution estimated at Rs. 36,000/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 16 to determine the loss due to dependence at Rs. 5,76,000/-. I would provide for Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and provide Rs. 5,000/- each one of the minor children. I would add another Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to estate and provide Rs. 2,500/- for funeral expenses. The amount of compensation that would become payable is Rs. 6,03,500/-. The same shall be paid with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. There has been a valid insurance for the amount and the entire liability will be borne by the insurance company as the insurer for the insured. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 11th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik