JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 88 and 89 of 1985 as both these appeals arise out of the same award dated 28.8.1984.
2. The claimants are in appeal aggrieved against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) dated 28.8.1984 whereby their applications under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were dismissed on the ground that the claimants have failed to established rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. PUX-9905.
3. It is the case of the appellants that on 11.10.1979, deceased Satnam Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur were going on a cycle towards Mehru on G.T. Road, whereas a truck bearing No. PUX-9905 came from the side of Jalandhar at a fast speed and hit against the cycle of Santokh Singh when he was on the left side of the road. Santokh Singh was run over by the truck while Surjit Kaur was thrown at some distance. Both of them died at the spot. On the basis of statement of Surinder Singh, who was on his separate cycle at a distance of 10 or 15 Karams, First Information Report was registered. It is the case of the claimants that Santokh Singh was serving as a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force and earning Rs. 700/- per month while Surjit Kaur was earning Rs. 500/- per month by doing household work and tailoring job.
4. The respondents denied that any accident had taken place with truck No. PUX-9905. It was pleaded that the aforesaid truck was not in Punjab and, in fact, on 10.10.1981 it had already crossed Ahmedabad border and it was on its way to Baroda. The owner of the truck denied that Bakhshish Singh was the driver of the truck.
5. Surinder Singh, author of the F.I.R., has been examined as AW1 who has proved FIR Exhibit A-2. He has deposed in respect of the manner of the accident and also that the police has wrongly recorded the number of truck No. PUX-9955. In the supplementary statement, the correct number of the truck was given as PUX-9905.
6. On behalf of the respondents, Satnam Singh, owner of truck No. PUX-9905, appeared as RW1. He deposed that Bakhshish Singh was never employed by him as driver of the truck and, in fact, Gurnam Singh was the driver of the truck and the said truck left Jalandhar for Baroda on 8.10J979 and the said truck crossed the barrier of Rajas-than and Ahemdabad on 9.10.1979 and 10.10.1979 respectively and it reached Baroda on 11.10.1979. It is admitted by him in cross-examination Bakhshish was released on bail on his furnishing surety in case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and that he got information regarding the movement of the truck from Gurnam Singh. It is also admitted by him that he has not made any complaint to the higher authorities in respect of involvement of his truck in the accident wrongly. Bakhshish Singh, alleged driver of the offending vehicle, has been examined as RW2. He deposed that he was driver of truck No. PUQ 8865 owned by Sardar Sohan Singh. It is admitted by him that he was challaned under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Santokh Singh and Surjit Kaur and he was arrested by the police. He admitted that Truck Union of Satnam Singh, owner of the offending vehicle, and that of Sohan Singh under whom he is presently working is at the same place. He deposed that he is working as driver under Jarnail Singh. RW3 Gurnam Singh is the person who was allegedly driving truck No. PUX-9905. He deposed that on 11.10.1979, he was at Baroda having left Jalandhar on 8.10.1979. In cross-examination by counsel for the claimants, he has deposed that he knew Bakshish Singh but denied that Bakhshish Singh was driving the truck on 11.10.1979. He deposed that Satnam Singh owns two trucks and he got manufactured the body of the offending vehicle. In cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company, he produced photocopies of consolidated permit Exhibit R4; weekly permits, goods tax and payment regarding court fee Exhibits R5 to R7 respectively. He admitted in further cross-examination by the counsel for the claimants that none of the aforesaid documents is signed by him and no receipt or permit was issued from 11.10.1979 to 16.10.1979. He could not produce any document showing the carriage of the goods from Delhi to Baroda and from Baroda to Delhi.
7. A perusal of the above evidence, in fact, shows that the stand of the owner of the truck that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident is wholly untenable. Firstly, the owner of the truck has not disclosed in the written statement filed that Gurnam Singh was the driver of the truck though he has denied that Bakhshish was the driver of the truck. Gurnam Singh has been introduced as a witness subsequently. Still further, RW2 Bakhshish Singh and RW3 Gurnam Singh both are stated to be presently working under Jarnail Singh. Thus, nexus between them cannot be ruled out. The owner of the vehicle has stood surety for Bakhshish Singh when he sought bail in a case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, AW1 Surinder Singh has deposed that in the criminal case, he identified Bakshish Singh as driver of the offending vehicle. No cross-examination was conducted on the said witness in this respect. It shows that Bakhshish Singh is not stranger to the owner of the vehicle. No complaint has been lodged by the owner of the offending vehicle to the higher authority in respect of false involvement of Bakhshish Singh in accident on 11.10.1979. No document of employment or register of payment of wages has been produced to show the employment of RW2 Bakhshish Singh and RW3 Gurnam Singh with the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the stand that Gurnam Singh was the driver engaged by Satnam Singh cannot be believed,
8. It is in the cross-examination of RW3 Gurnam Singh, he has produced certain documents to show that the offending vehicle was, in fact, in the area of Ahemdabad. Documents Exhibits R3 to R5 are the permits issued. All the permits are the photocopies. Such permits are not sought to be proved by calling the officials from the issuing department. None of these permits bear the signatures of either Gurnam Singh or Bakhshish Singh to show that the permits were issued to them. There is nothing on the record that for the issuance of permit the vehicle has to be specifically present at the check post. Still further, driver of the vehicle has not produced any goods receipt to prove that, in fact, the vehicle was moving to the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The goods receipts are the relevant piece of evidence to prove actual transportation of goods but for non production of such receipts, adverse inference can be raised.
9. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that Exhibits R-5 to R-7 are the weekly permits, goods tax and payment regarding court fee respectively which shows the movement of truck in Rajasthan and Gujarat is based upon conjectures and surmises. Firstly, such documents have been produced by RW3 Gurnam Singh who is not proved to be driver of the offending vehicle. Still further, documents produced are the photocopies. None of the officials from the department have been produced and the best evidence i.e., goods receipts has been withheld. Therefore, the finding that vehicle PUX9905 was not involved in the accident is not sustainable in law. Consequently, it is held that on 11.10.1979 the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. PUX-9905.
10. As per salary certificate Exhibit P-3, Santokh Singh was drawing salary of Rs. 567.80 at the time of his death. The Tribunal has taken that he must have been spending Rs. 200/- on himself and contributing Rs. 500/- towards the welfare of his family members. The deceased was Head Constable in CRPF. His personal expenses would have been minimum as his food and clothing were taken care by his employer. Consequently, one can safely infer that he must have not been spending more than Rs. 67/- per month on himself. As per salary certificate P-3, Santokh Singh was born on 17.02.1938 and he was 41 years 7 months and 25 days at the time of accident. In view of his age, suitable multiplier which is required to be applied is 16. The compensation to be paid to the appellant-claimants comes Rs. 96,000/- (500 x 12 x 16 = 96,000) in F.A.O. No. 88 of 1985 on account of death of Satnam Singh. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.
11. AW2 Harbinder Singh deposed that his mother Surjit Kaur who was aged about 35 years at the time of accident was doing tailoring work besides household woik. He further deposed that she used to earn about Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month.
12. Keeping in view the efforts of the woman for maintaining the house and rearing of children, I deem it appropriate to assume her contribution at least at Rs. 300/- per month for household expenses. Keeping in view her age, multiplier of 16 would be suitable multiplier. Thus, compensation payable to the appellant-claimants on account of death of Surjit Kaur would be Rs. 57,600/- (300 x 12 x 16 – 57,600/-) in F.A.O. No. 89 of 1985. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.
The entire compensation amount shall be payable to the appellants Harbinder Singh, Balvinder Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur, son and daughters of deceased Santokh Singh and Surjit Kaur deceased in equal shares.