JUDGMENT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. This order will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 2049, 2050 and 2051 of 2003 as they arise out of the common award dated 12.11.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala.
2. Smt. Sheela Rani along with the her minor children and mother of the deceased claimants in M.A.C.T. No. 83 of 23.12.1998 had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motoi Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act’) claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Shri Khraiti Lal in a motor vehicle accident.
3. The case set up by the claimants was that on March 11, 1998 at about 8 a.m. Shri Kharaiti Lal deceased along with the claimant and Budhwanti, claimant in M.A.C.T. No. 96-T dated 2.11.1999, were going on a Scooter bearing No.PBR-5982 from Khamano Mandi to village Haneala, Tehsil Rajpura for attending the bhog ceremony of one Parma Ram. Kanwar Ram and Ramesh Kumar were following them on another scooter No.PB-11-E-2122 and when they reached on the bridge near Lali Dhaba in village Pahar Kalan, one Trala No.HR-38-6785 came from behind which was being driven rashly and negligently by Shri Nidhan Singh and struck against the scooter being driven by Kharaiti Lal. As a result thereof, Kharaiti Lal deceased, Sheela Rani and Budhwanti fell on the road. Left leg of Budhwanti was crushed while Kharaiti Lal and Sheela Rani had received head injuries. The injured were rushed to A.P. Jain Hospital, Patiala. Kharaiti Lal succumbed to his injuries.
4. It was claimed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Nidhan Singh, driver, respondent No. 1 herein. It was further claimed that Sheela Rani became mentally upset and has also been deprived of love and affection of her husband. It was claimed that she was dependent on the income of Kharaiti Lal. She further claimed that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent by her on her treatment and she was still under treatment. It was also claimed that another sum of Rs. 2 lacs was spent on the treatment of Budhwanti, claimant in M.A.C.T. No. 96-T dated 2.11.1999.
5. It was also the case of the claimant that a permanent servant was required to look after her. The claimants claimed compensation from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein being owner and driver and respondent No. 3 being insurer of the offending vehicle.
6. On notice having been given by the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through Shri D.P.S. Anand, Advocate, but later on they failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, appeared and filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition and it took an objection that respondent No. 1, driver of offending vehicle, was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It was further claimed that the offending vehicle was not having a valid route permit and fitness certificate at the time of alleged accident. Another objection of non-joinder of necessary party was also taken.
7. It was also claimed that Kharaiti Lal deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The Insurance Company in pursuance to the permission granted under Section 170 of the Act took all the pleas available to it.
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether Sheela Rani received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Tarala No.HR-38-6785 being driven by Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1? If so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether Budhwanti also received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Trala No.HR-38-6785 being driven by Nidhan Singh, respondent No. 1? If so, its effect? OPP
3. Whether Kharaiti Lal died due to rash and negligent of Trala No. HR-38-6785 being driven by Nidhan Singh, respondent No. 1? If so, its effect? OPP
3A. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
4. Whether Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR
5. Whether this claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
6. Relief.
Learned tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the claimants by holding that Smt. Sheela Rani and Budhwanti had sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It was further held that Kharaiti Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of Trala No.HR-38-6785 driven by respondent No. 1.
9. Issue No. 4 was decided against the insurance company by holding that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence. Issue No. 5 regarding nonjoinder of necessary party was not pressed. In view of the findings, the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant sum of Rs. 4,11,000/- as compensation to Smt. Sheela Rani and Ors. in M.A.C.T. No. 97-T dated 25.11.1998 on account of death of Shri Kharaiti Lal.
10. In M.A.C.T. No. 83 dated 23.12.1998 filed by Smt. Sheela Rani claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her, she was awarded in a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation whereas in M.A.C.T. No. 96-T dated 2.11.1999 filed by Smt. Budhwanti, she was granted a compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,500/- on account of permanent disability and disfigurement due to the said accident.
F.A.O. No. 2049 of 2003
11. learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned tribunal on issue No. 3-A on the ground that out of total income of Rs. 4,500/- the dependency of the deceased has been wrongly assessed at Rs. 3,000/- only. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants was that it was not fair to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,500/-for personal use out of an amount of Rs. 4,500/- as assessed. learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that future prospects of the deceased have not been taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. .
12. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Court should have followed the unit system for the purpose of calculating dependency.
13. I have considered this argument and find no force in the same.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (supra) was considering the claim in the case of a person, who was captain in the Indian Army and had prospects of further promotion. However, in the present case, the deceased was not an employee with prospects of future earning and, therefore, no future prospects could be taken into consideration in this case. There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the dependency of Rs. 3,000/- has been wrongly calculated. The learned tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that out of Rs. 4,500/-, the dependency was to be assessed at Rs. 3,000/-.
15. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants argued that the multiplier of 11 is not justified. The case of the appellants was that the deceased was only 43 years of age at the time of the accident and, therefore, a multiplier of 15 should have been applied. There is force in this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants and accordingly, it is held that multiplier of 15 was to be applied to the dependency assessed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, findings on issue No. 3A are modified and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/-. Besides this, she is also entitled to the amount spent on the last rites of the deceased i.e Rs. 15,000/-. Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 5,55,000/-. The claimants would further be entitled to interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.
F.A.O. No. 2050 of 2003.
16. The claimant- Smt. Sheela Rani had suffered head injury on account of which she remained unconscious for about 3-4 days. She received injuries on her brain and left shoulder and on account of the said accident she lost her alertness. She further claimed that she had spent Rs. 1.50 lacs on her treatment. The learned tribunal was pleased to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- towards, aransportation charges, another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for special diet, Rs. 5,000/- as expenses on attendant and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pre and post-operation charges.
17. However, the other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that she has not been granted any compensation towards loss of alertness. The No. 1 also contended that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is too meager keeping in view the fact that she remained unconscious for 3-4 days and as per the medical evidence she lost her alertness. Accordingly, the findings on issue No. 3-A are modified and she is held entitled to Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of alertness and pain and suffering instead of Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation payable to her is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. She would further be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the said amount from the date of claim petition till realisation.
F.A.O. No. 2051 of 2003
18. The left leg of Budhwanti claimant was crushed in the accident and it was claimed that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was spent by her on her treatment. Besides this, she was being looked after by an attendant, who was paid Rs. 500-600/- per month. It was also claimed that two operations were performed on her left leg and in proof of this, she placed on record the receipt Exhibits PW1/A to Q.
19. The learned tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 85.OOO/- i.e. Rs. 25,000/- for pre-and post-operation charges, Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 15,000/- was given as medical expenses. In addition thereto, the claimant was paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as special diet, Rs. 5,000/-towards transportation charges and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was granted towards disfigurement and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards social discomfiture.
20. learned Counsel for the appellant contended that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- granted towards permanent disfigurement was on the lower side. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that though she has lost a leg, but no amount has been awarded towards this. Keeping in view the nature of the injury suffered by her and permanent disability, I feel it would be appropriate if the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 85,000/- to Rs. 1,70,000/-. Accordingly, the findings on issue No. 3A are modified and the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- for the injury suffered by her in the said accident. She would further be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the said amount. However, the ratio of compensation payable to the claimants in F.A.O. No. 2049 of 2003 as ordered by the learned Tribunal is upheld.
The F.A.Os. are partly accepted and the compensation is enhanced as indicated.