IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992
Date of Decision : March 09 , 2009
National Insurance Company Limited and others
....Appellants
Versus
Janki Devi and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. S.K. Hooda, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No. 6.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
By one judgement, the present appeal as well as F.A.O. No. 11
of 1992 are being disposed of, as both of them arise out of a common
judgement dated 22.7.1991 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-III, Rohtak.
The facts giving rise to the two appeals are that on 3.6.1990,
Sukhbir Singh was proceeding in his Maruti van No. DDA-7284 from
Rohtak to Meham. When he was short of I.T.I. Meham by only one and half
kilometre, his Maruti van was hit by a bus bearing registration No. HR-22-
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -2-
6022 driven by Kishan Lal. At the time of the accident, Sukhbir Singh was
driving his van on the left side and at a very slow speed. However, the bus
was being driven at a very high speed by Kishan Lal, who was also rash and
negligent in doing so. In the process, he came on the wrong side of the road
and hit the Maruti van. As a result, Sukhbir Singh, who was the sole
occupant of the van, received injuries to which he succumbed at the spot.
Taking advantage of the fact that Sukhbir Singh was all alone at the time of
the accident, Kishan Lal, driver went to the police and narrated a wrong
version. However, according to the claimants, the accident was witnessed by
Chhattar Singh of village Madina and Devinder Singh of village Chhara,
who were travelling in the bus driven by Kishan Lal.
The accident in question gave rise to filing of two claim
petitions by Chander Kala widow of Sukhbir Singh, Manju Bala, Naveen and
Parveen, minor children of Sukhbir Singh and Janki Devi, mother of Sukhbir
Singh. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 61 of 1990, titled Chander Kala and others v.
State of Haryana and others, the claimants prayed for the grant of a sum of
Rs. five lakh as compensation, on account of the death of the sole bread-
winner of the family, who was aged 30 years and employed as Hawaldar in
the Indian Army and serving in National Security Guards, Government of
India. He was drawing a salary of Rs.2,600/- per month, besides getting
other perks such as free mess, dress, lodging and boarding. The other claim
petition bearing M.A.C.T. Case No. 60 titled Janki Devi and others v. State
of Haryana and others, was filed for claiming an amount of Rs. 70,000/- as
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -3-
compensation on account of damage to the Maruti van as an amount of Rs.
63,500/- was spent on the repairs and Rs. 6,500/- towards transportation of
the van.
In their joint written statement, the State of Haryana and
General Manager, Haryana Roadways challenged the locus standi of the
claimants to file the claim petitions. According to them, as the bus in
question was duly insured with National Insurance Company Limited, the
said Company was liable to indemnify them in the event of they being found
liable to pay the compensation. They did not dispute the date, time and place
of the accident. However they denied that the driver of the bus was rash or
negligent in driving. According to them, the Maruti van was driven by
Sukhbir Singh at a very high speed. The driver of the van could not control
the van and struck the bus by coming on wrong side of the road. As the
accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the Maruti van, a case was also registered against him at Police
Station, Meham. They, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of both the claim
petitions.
Kishan Lal, driver did not file any written statement but adopted
the one filed by the State of Haryana and General Manager of Haryana
Roadways. National Insurance Company Limited, who was arrayed as
respondent No. 4 in both the claim petitions, took up all possible pleas to
oppose the claim petitions. It was stated that the driver of the bus had no
valid driving licence. The petitions were bad for non joinder of necessary
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -4-
parties, as the owner and insurer of the Maruti van had not been impleaded
as respondents. Even deceased-Sukhbir Singh had no valid licence.
Moreover, the owner of the bus did not inform it about the accident and,
therefore, not liable to indemnify the insured.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in
M.A.C.T. Case No. 61 of 1990 :-
1. Whether the motor vehicular accident that
took place on 3.6.1990 is the result of rash
and negligent driving of bus No. HR-22-6022
by resondent No. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether Sukhbir Singh died in the aforesaid
accident ? OPP.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, if so in what amount and from
whom ? OPP.
4. Whether resondent No. 4 is not liable to
indemnify respondents No. 1 and 2 in case
they are ordered to pay compensation to the
petitioners as alleged in the preliminary
objections ? OPR-4.
5. Relief.
In M.A.C.T. Case No. 60 of 1990, learned Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -5-
1. Whether the motor vehicular accident that
took place on 3.6.1990, is the result of rash
and negligent driving of bus No. HR-22-6022
by respondent No. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether Maruti van No. DDA-7284 was
damaged in the aforesaid accident, if so what
is the extent of the damage ? OPP.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation on account of damage to
Maruti van No. DDA-7284, if so in what
amount and from whom ? OPP.
4. Whether respondent No. 4 is not liable to
indemnify respondents No. 1 and 2 in case
they are ordered to pay compensation to the
petitioners as alleged in the preliminary
objections ? OPR-4.
5. Relief.
Subsequent to framing of the issues, both the claim petitions
were consolidated. Evidence was, however, led in M.A.C.T. Case No. 61 of
1990.
After persuing the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the
parties, learned Tribunal held that the accident in question was the result of
rash and negligent driving of the bus by Kishan Lal as a result of which,
Sukhbir Singh sustained fatal injuries, besides damage being caused to the
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -6-
Maruti van. Taking the salary of Rs.1983.50p and the perks, which Sukhbir
Singh used to receive, into consideration learned Tribunal assessed the
monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 1,800/-. Multiplier of 18 was
applied as the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of his death.
Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to receive an amount of
Rs.3,88,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Sukhbir Singh in
the accident. As regards the damage to the vehicle, learned Tribunal relied
upon the estimate Ex. P1 proved on the record by Rajinder Vij PW3, to hold
that the Maruti van was badly damaged as a result of which the claimants
suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/-. Resultantly, both the claim petitions were
allowed with costs. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 61 of 1990 titled Chander Kala
and others v. State of Haryana and others, the claimants were awarded a
sum of Rs. 3,88,000/- as compensation on account of death of Sukhbir Singh
and in M.A.C.T. Case No. 60 of 1990 titled Janki Devi and others v. State
of Haryana and others, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was awarded as
compensation on account of damage to the Maruti van. The claimants were
also held entitled to interest on both the amounts at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of institution of the claim petitions till the date of
realisation. The liability of all the four respondents in both the claim
petitions was ordered to be co-extensive.
Aggrieved of the aforementioned award, National Insurance
Company Limited, along with General Manager, Haryana Roadways and
Kishan Lal, driver have filed F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 against the grant of
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -7-
compensation in respect of damage to the Maruti van and F.A.O. No. 11 of
1992 against awarding of compensation on account of death of Sukhbir
Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals has
submitted that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash
and negligent driving of the Maruti van by Sukhbir Singh-deceased and not
on account of the driving of bus by Kishan Lal. This fact is also
corroborated by the report lodged by Kishan Lal, driver. The claimants had
not led sufficient evidence to establish the income which Sukhbir Singh
deceased used to receive every month and, therefore, the dependency of Rs.
1,800/- per month as calculated by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side.
As the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of the accident, the
multiplier of 18 applied by the learned Tribunal was again on the higher side.
Even compensation granted on account of damage to the van was liable to be
reduced.
Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents opposed the
appeals on the ground that it was Kishan Lal, driver, who was rash and
negligent in driving the bus and by coming over to the wrong side of the
road, hit the bus against Maruti van driven by Sukhbir Singh as a result of
which the latter lost his life. The accident was witnessed by Chhattar Singh
and Devinder Singh, who were travelling in the bus driven by Kishan Lal
and they testified that the bus driver was driving the bus at a high speed and
in order to avoid hitting a cyclist, who was going in front of the bus, he took
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -8-
a turn towards the right. In the process, he lost control over the vehicle and
hit the Maruti van, which was on its left side. As regards the income and
perks, which were received by Sukhbir Singh-deceased, learned counsel
submitted that last pay drawn stood proved by the testimony of Balwan
Singh PW4, who proved such a certificate Ex.P.2. As the deceased was 33
years of age, learned Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of 18
for granting compensation to the claimants.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
entire record.
Admittedly, at the time of the accident, Sukhbir Singh-deceased
was the lone occupant of the Maruti van, which he was driving and
proceeding from Rohtak to Meham. After the accident, which admittedly
was on account of a collision between the Maruti van and the Roadways bus,
Kishan Lal, driver appeared to have taken the advantage of narrating a
version to the police as it suited him. In such like situation, any ordinary man
would make self serving statement, instead of coming out with a truthful
version and, that too, when possibility of that person being held responsible
for causing the accident could not be ruled out. Under these circumstances,
no reliance can be placed upon the version given by Kishan Lal, driver to the
police that it was Sukhbir Singh-deceased, who was driving Maruti van in a
rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, the accident took place.
On the other hand, there are testimonies of Chhattar Singh PW6 and
Devinder Singh PW7, who were sitting in the bus in question as passengers
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -9-
at the time of the accident. Both of them supported the case of the claimants
by deposing before the learned Tribunal that the driver of the bus was
driving it at a high speed and when a cyclist came infront of the bus, the
driver tried to avoid hitting him by taking the bus towards the right side. In
the process, he lost control over the bus and hit Maruti van coming on its left
side. Apart from the testimonies of Chhattar Singh and Devinder Singh there
is evidence of Harish Chander Photographer PW2, who proved photographs
Ex. P4 to P6. A look at the photographs would show that the bus was
damaged on its right side and its front portion was on the wrong side of the
road. The Maruti van was shown standing on its left side. It is, thus,
established that the bus had gone to its wrong side as a result of which the
accident in question had taken place leading to the death of Sukhbir Singh
and damage to the Maruti van.
Naik Clerk Balwan Singh, PW4 proved Last Pay Certificate of
Sukhbir Singh as Ex. P2 as per which his pay was Rs.1983.50p. He also
stated that everyone posted in military gets free meals and even when one is
on leave, he gets payment in lieu of free meals. Besides, according to
Chander Kala PW1, the deceased used to obtain benefits worth Rs.400/-
every month. Under these circumstances, the dependency of Rs.1,800/- every
month as calculated by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on the
higher side. Though the claimants stated that Sukhbir Singh died at the age
of 30 years, yet matriculation certificate Ex. P8 showed that the deceased
was born on 10.1.1957. As such he was 33 years of age at the time of the
F.A.O. No. 10 of 1992 -10-
accident. After taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 33 years,
learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 in determining the
compensation payable to the claimants on account of death of Sukhbir Singh.
The claimants had got damaged Maruti van examined from a
workshop at Faridabad in order to get an estimate of the cost to be incurred
on its repairs. Rajinder Vij PW3 proved the estimate Ex.P1, as per which Rs.
63,000/- was the likely expenditure in conducting the repairs of the van. For
that reason, learned Tribunal did not commit any error in granting an amount
of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the damage to the Maruti
van.
Resultantly, there is no merit in both the appeals, which are,
therefore, dismissed. No costs.
( T.P.S. MANN )
March 09, 2009 JUDGE
satish
Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES/NO