Pal Singh vs Karam Singh Negi

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This appeal, preferred u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 15.03.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/III Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim petition No. 106 of 2009, whereby the tribunal has directed the respondent No. 3 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,25,032/- with 6% interest per annum there on. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the tribunal.

Brief facts, of the case, are that on 24.07.2009 Jitendra Kumar (deceased) who was constable with Police Department of the State of Uttarakhand, posted at Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun, was on his way to his home on a motor cycle. A bus bearing registration No. UA-07A-5115 which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed at the motor cycle from behind near Chandighat bridge, Haridwar. In the accident Jitendra Kumar suffered injuries, and was taken to G.D. Hospital, Haridwar from where he was referred to C.M.I. Dehradun, and there he succumbed to the injuries.

Appellant No. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased and appellant No. 3 is sister of the deceased. They alongwith Sanjita (widow of the deceased) filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 22,15,000/-.

The claim petition was contested by the respondents before the tribunal who filed their written statements. The vehicle (bus) bearing registration No. UA-07A-5115 was insured with New India Assurance Company at the time of accident. The owner of the vehicle pleaded that compensation if any, is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company. It is also pleaded by the owner of the bus that the claim petition is bad for non joinder of the company with whom the motor cycle involved in the accident was insured. The similar plea was taken by the driver of the bus involved in the accident. Respondent No. 3 with whom the vehicle was insured pleaded that vehicle was being driven without valid license by the driver. It is also pleaded that the accident had not occurred due to fault on the part of the driver of the bus.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the tribunal.

(i) Whether on 24.07.2009 at about 12:10 hours, near Chandi Ghat, Haridwar, bus bearing registration No. UA-07A-5115 was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver and the bus dashed at the motor cycle which was being driven by Jitendra Kumar (deceased) who suffered injuries in the accident, and died in CMI Hospital Dehradun?

(ii) Whether the bus involved in the accident was not being driven with valid papers?

(iii) Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

(iv) To what compensation if any, the claimants are entitled and from whom?

The tribunal after recording evidence of the parties gave the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. UA-07A-5115. The tribunal further found that the vehicle was being driven with valid papers. It also found that the claim petition is not bad for non joinder of necessary party (i.e. Insurance Company with whom the motor cycle was insured) as the motor cyclist was not at fault in driving said vehicle. On the quantum of compensation the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,144/- per month and applied multiplier of seventeen after deducting one fourth (�) of the salary which the deceased would have spent on himself. This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

First of all it is relevant to mention here that the total amount claimed by the claimants in the claim petition is Rs. 22,15,000/-. The tribunal has already awarded Rs. 17,25,032/- with 6% per annum there on.

It is not disputed that the deceased was a constable with the police department of the State. As far as salary of the deceased is concerned, assessment with regard to his income is based on the documentary evidence produced before the tribunal and the appellants have not challenged said assessment. What is contended before this Court is that in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , it has been observed that where the deceased was less than 40 years of age and had a permanent job, it is expected that his salary would have increased by 50% in the future. On its basis it is argued that more compensation should be awarded to the claimants. I have gone through the judgment referred on behalf of the appellants. It is relevant to mention here that while the constable could have got promotion in time to come, it cannot be ruled out that he would have been blessed with children as he was newly married man at the time of the accident, and the deceased would have spent money on his children. Present appellants are parents and sister of the deceased. Widow of the deceased has not filed any appeal. Benefit of multiplier of seventeen has already been given to the parents and sister also. In such circumstances it cannot be said that more financial loss has been suffered by the appellants than what has been awarded to them.

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is no scope of enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 17,25,032/- already awarded by the tribunal. Out of this total sum awarded, 40% of the compensation has been directed to be paid to the widow of the deceased, and rest of the amount has been directed to be paid in equal shares to the present appellants who are parents and sister of the deceased. Having gone through the impugned award, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned award. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.