Angoori Devi and another vs Satwinder Singh and others

The claimants are the mother and father of deceased Pardeep Kumar.

He died in an accident which took place on 19.04.1996. At the time of his death, he

was unmarried, aged 23 years and working in M/s Amar Sweets and Dairy, Sector-

41, Chandigarh.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the driver and owner, respectively of truck

No. PAT-9779 with which the accident took place, resulting in death of Pardeep

Kumar. Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance company with which the truck was

insured. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are not represented before this Court and were

proceeded ex-parte even before the MACT, Ambala. Since it is not in dispute that

the offending truck was insured with respondent No. 3, I am proceeding to decide

this case in their absence.

On the date of the accident, Pardeep Kumar was riding his scooter

HNL-777 and was proceeding towards petrol pump in Sector 41, Chandigarh. He

was driving on the left side of the road. When he reached the Church near village

Buterala, the offending truck came from the opposite side and hit the scooter

resulting in serious injuries to the deceased. The accident was witnessed by one

Daljit Singh son of Norata Singh, who took the deceased to PGI, Chandigarh, where

he succumbed to his injuries. The MACT, Ambala determined the compensation of

Rs. 1,24,000/- recoverable from all the respondents jointly and severally alongwith

interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of institution of the petition till realization, to be

divided equally between both the claimants.

Aggrieved by the said award the claimants have filed the present

appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record.

The issues raised in this appeal are as follows:-

(i) Whether accident dated 19.4.1996 in the area of Police Station,

Sector-39, Chandigarh, resulting into the death of Pardeep Kumar took

place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PAT 9779 ? If so

to what effect? OPP

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of

death of Pardeep Kumar, if so to what amount? OPP

(iii) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without valid

driving licence and other documents, as alleged? OPR

(iv) Whether the Insurance Company is not liable? OPR

(v) Relief.

The Tribunal found on the basis of evidence on record that Pardeep

Kumar died due to accident caused by the offending truck on 19.04.1996 and that

the driver of the offending truck was driving the same in a rash and negligent

manner. No meaningful argument in this regard has been addressed by counsel for

the Insurance Company and, therefore, the finding is upheld. It may not be out of

place to mention that the owner and driver were proceeded against ex-parte before

the learned Tribunal. They also did not choose to file any appeal against the

impugned award. Respondent No. 3 has also not preferred any appeal/cross

objections against the impugned award.

The only issue that remains to be decided is regarding the quantum of

compensation that the claimants are entitled to. It is not in dispute that the deceased

Pardeep Kumar was aged 23 years when he died and that he was unmarried. His

mother had deposed as PW-2 and had stated that he was earning Rs. 3500/- per month.

During cross-examination she stated that she had four sons, one out of whom was

married and residing separately and was doing labour work.

Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,800/- per

month because there was no documentary proof to support the statement of PW-2.

The deceased was treated as a casual labourer. I am of the opinion that the income

of deceased was assessed on the lower side. He should have been treated as a

skilled labourer because he was engaged in preparation of sweets in a sweetmeat

shop. I, therefore, assess his income at Rs. 2500/- per month being minimum wages

being drawn by a skilled labourer. To this income future prospects have to be added

as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and

others, 2013(9) SCC 54. This judgment has been subsequently followed by another

three judge Bench in Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and

others, 2015(3) PLR 304. Accordingly, 50% of the monthly income of the

deceased has to be added to his monthly income on account of future prospects as

the deceased was less than 40 years of age on the date of his death. Thus, the

monthly income would become Rs. 3,750/-. A deduction of 50% would have to be

made since the deceased was unmarried and the monthly dependency works out to Rs.

1,875/-. The annual dependency would be Rs. 22,500/-.

It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the matter

regarding future prospects is pending adjudication before a larger Bench of five

judges by virtue of decision dated 2.7.2014 in National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Puspa and others, 2015(9) SCC 166. It is true that the issue is pending

adjudication before a larger Bench but I am placing reliance upon decision dated

15.05.2015 in the case of Munna Lal Jain''s case (supra). The decision in Munna

Lal Jain''s case (supra) is later in point of time than the decision in Pushpa''s case

(supra). Further, both the conflicting decisions i.e. Rajesh''s case (supra) and

Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013(9) SCC 65, have

been cited before the Bench in Munna Lal''s case (supra).

The deceased was 23 years of age, hence, multiplier of 18 is to be

applied on the basis of decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and

others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the multiplier

has to be applied taking into consideration the age of the parents of the deceased. I,

however, reject this argument by relying upon Munna Lal Jain''s case (supra)

wherein it has been held that multiplier has to be assessed by keeping in view the

age of the deceased.

Thus, the compensation is assessed as follows:-

(i) Loss of dependency - Rs. 22,500/- per annum

(ii) Multiplier of 18

(iii) Total compensation - Rs. 4,05,000/-

I, further, grant Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- each for the parents) towards

loss of love and affection. In my opinion even the father would be entitled to be

compensated on account loss of love and affection, even though there is no evidence

on record that he was dependent on the deceased. Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards

funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- is granted towards loss of estate. The total

compensation, therefore, works out to Rs. 5,32,500/-. The said compensation would

be divided equally between the claimants and payable alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no costs.