Smt. Sudesh Devi And Another vs Satbir Singh And Others on 30 October, 2008

F.A.O. No.4663 of 2007                                        -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                   ****
                              F.A.O. No.4663 of 2007
                            Date of Decision:30.10.2008

Smt. Sudesh Devi and another
                                                       .....Appellants
           Vs.
Satbir Singh and others
                                                       .....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present:-   Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants.
                        ****
HARBANS LAL, J.

By filing this appeal, the appellants Sudesh Devi and Randhir

Singh have sought enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani vide his award dated

4.1.2005.

The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 2.2.2001 at

about 4:00 P.M., the deceased Naresh was dirivng Suzuki motor-cycle,

whereas deceased Jitender was riding the pillion. They were proceeding

from Bhiwani to Bawani Khera. They were being followed by Hero Honda

motor cycle being driven by Raj Singh. When they neared Village Lohari

Jatu, the offending Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No.HR-46-

0374 being driven by Satbir Singh, respondent, rashly, negligently and at a

high speed came from the opposite direction and struck against the motor-

cycle of the deceased Naresh by coming on the wrong side. As a result of

this impact, Naresh died at the spot whereas Jitender succumbed to the

injuries at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. The

claim petition was resisted by the respondents. The following issues were
F.A.O. No.4663 of 2007 -2-

framed:-

(1) Whether the accident in question had taken place due to

rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-46-0374

resulting into death of Naresh and Jitender, by

respondent no.1 Satbir Singh? OPP

(2) If issue no.1 is proved to what amount of compensation

petitioners in both the claim petitions are entitled to and

from whom?OPP

(3) Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving

licence at the time of accident in question?OPR

(4) Relief.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining

the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.2,45,200/- as compensation on account of the death of Naresh and also

awarded a sum of Rs.3,17,200/- as compensation on account of the death of

Jitender. Feeling that the amount awarded as compensation is on the lower

side, the claimants- appellants have preferred this appeal. The claimants-

appellants Sudesh Devi and Randhir Singh have preferred this appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation warded on account of death of

Naresh.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides

perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and

circumspection.

Learned counsel for the appellants urged with great eloquence

that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased

Naresh at the rate of Rs.2100/- per month though he was earning a sum of
F.A.O. No.4663 of 2007 -3-

Rs.5,000/- per month being a Clerk with an advocate and furthermore there

are two claimants and they both were dependent upon the deceased and a

multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also on the lower side and thus the

amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced.

I have well considered these submissions. As observed by the

Tribunal in paragraph No.16 of the award, “no definite evidence of his

(referring to the deceased Naresh) income was placed on the file. In such

circumstances, it would be safe to assess his income as a casual labourer,

the minimum wages of which are not less than Rs.2100/- per month.” It is

inferable from these observations that the claimants did not adduce any

evidence to the effect that the deceased was working as a Clerk with some

Advocate and his monthly income was Rs.5,000/- per month. Furthermore,

14 has been applied as the multiplier. In view of age of the appellants,

being parents of the deceased, this multiplier is quite just and reasonable

and calls for no interference.

In view of the above discussion, prima-facie no case is made

out for enhancement of the awarded compensation. Sequelly, no

interference is warranted in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal.

Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

October 30, 2008                                      ( HARBANS LAL )
renu                                                       JUDGE

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No