AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARSH BUNGER J. ORAL:-
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.22,93,232/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') vide award dated 01.04.2023 passed in MACP No.137 of 2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act').
The claimants are the wife and minor children of deceased Daler Ram, who was 34 years of age at the time of accident.
Briefly, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act before the learned Tribunal on the plea that on 25.05.2019, Sh. Daler Ram had come to his in-laws in Village Hizrawan, District Fatehabad and at about 07:00 A.M., he started his journey on his motorcycle bearing No. PB-11C/1947 (Bajaj Platina) and he was going towards his Village Khannewal, Punjab. It was pleaded by the claimants that one Veer Chand son of Mala Ram also resident of Village Hizrawan, District Fatehabad was going towards Village Khannewal, Punjab, behind Sh. Daler Ram at a distance of about 100 meters on his own motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-22L/1450 (Discover). At about 8:30 A.M., when they reached near Kadaka Hotel, Village Meond Kalan, then the offending vehicle i.e., Pick-up Van bearing registration No.HR-55-J-7553, being driven by respondent No.1-Birbal Khan came from the opposite/front side in a rash and negligent manner and struck into the motorcycle of Daler Ram. Due to the impact, Daler Ram fell down on the road and received multiple injuries on his head. Birbal Khan, driver of the offending vehicle came out of the offending vehicle and upon seeing the condition of Daler Ram, ran away with the offending vehicle; however, the entire scene was witnessed by Sh. Veer Chand, who was coming on his motorcycle behind Daler Ram. Thereafter, Veer Chand shifted Daler Ram in a Government Hospital, Tohana, where, Daler Ram was declared dead.
A case FIR No.54 dated 25.05.2019 was also registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC at police station Jakhal and during investigation, the offending vehicle was taken into police custody and the driver-Birbal Khan (respondent No.1) was arrested. The offending vehicle is stated to be owned by Sh. Dinesh Kumar (respondent No.2); however, as per statement of Sh. Dinesh Kumar recorded by police on 03.07.2019, the vehicle is stated to be owned by respondent No.2-A (Lakhwinder Singh) and the offending vehicle was insured with the Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.3).
The claim petition was contested by the respondents.
From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
“1.Whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1? OPP
2.If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent? OPP
3.Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3
4.Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3
5.Relief”
Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence in support of their pleaded case.
The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence available on record, returned a finding under Issue No.1 that respondent No.1 (Birbal Khan) had caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which, Daler Ram died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Further, the learned Tribunal held under Issue No.2 that all the claimants are entitled to compensation. The learned Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.22,93,232/- along with interest @ 7.5 per annum.
Further, respondent No.1 (Driver), respondent No.2 (owner) and respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants; however, since the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3; accordingly, it was directed that amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company.
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased-Daler Ram; and accordingly, awarded compensation on the lower side.
No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper-book with his able assistance.
A perusal of the record of the case shows that though it was pleaded case of the appellants/claimants that the deceased (Daler Ram) was working as a private driver of heavy vehicle (truck) in the transport of one Sh. Raj Singh son of Jagroop Singh of Patran (Patiala) and was having a valid and effective driving licence for driving the heavy vehicle and was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. However, in order to prove the aforesaid stand regarding employment and income of deceased-Daler Ram, appellant No.1-Amarjeet Kaur (wife of deceased Daler Ram) stepped into witness box as PW-1 and she admitted during her cross-examination that she has no proof regarding appointment of her husband Daler Ram (since deceased) with Sh. Raj Singh, Transporter. Further, Raj Singh (alleged transporter) was examined as PW-3, who admitted in his cross-examination that he is not the owner of truck bearing Registration No.PB-13R/6400 and that he did not issue any appointment letter to Daler Ram (since deceased). Sh. Raj Singh further stated that he was not having any agreement regarding appointment of Daler Ram as a driver nor he was maintaining any register regarding attendance and disbursement of salary of said Daler Ram.
Learned Tribunal after considering the relevant material available on record came to the conclusion that there was no cogent and documentary evidence regarding income of deceased-Daler Ram; however, learned Tribunal while considering Sh. Daler Ram (deceased) as an unskilled labourer, assessed the income as Rs.11,960/- per month i.e., the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer, as per order dated 02.08.2019 issued by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show any material which may indicate that the deceased-Daler Ram was having income of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- as claimed by the claimants.
Nothing has been produced by the appellants in the form of Bank Statement of deceased Daler Ram to show that he was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month and depositing the same in the Bank.
Once there is no documentary evidence as regards the salary/income of the deceased-Daler Ram; accordingly, I find no error in the assessment of income made by the learned Tribunal as Rs.11,960/- on the basis of relevant minimum wage order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad.
Further, the age of the deceased Daler Ram at the time of accident was 34 years - 4 months as per the documents available on record, accordingly, the learned Tribunal rightly made an addition of 40% towards future prospect and correctly applied the multiplier of '16'. Further as there are three claimants, the learned Tribunal has rightly made deduction of 1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of deceased, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another", 2009 (6) SCC 121.
The learned Tribunal has further granted amount under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and all the three claimants have been granted consortium @ Rs.40,000/- (each); thereby granting total compensation of Rs.22,93,232/- along with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment.
From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt, Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Haryana & Another v. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID #64043 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva Shetty", (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance.
In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed.
All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.