Rajpal Kaur and Others vs Joginder Singh and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.

C.M. No. 1192-CII of 2010

This is an application for recalling the order dated 01.09.2006 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court.

The ground taken is that the applicant-respondent No. 4 was the widow of the deceased who also has a minor child. The original claim petition was filed by her along with the father and two sisters of the deceased. After the award was passed she was given assurance that appeal shall be filed on her behalf also though the same had not been filed on her behalf and she and her child was impleaded as pro forma respondents. When the case came up for hearing before the Lok Adalat one of the sisters represented herself to be the widow and by order dated 01.09.2006 she was granted an amount of Rs. 35,000/- more. All this was done behind the back of the applicants and consequently prayer has been made to recall the said order and to hear the case on merits. Dasti notices have been served upon the appellant No. 1-non-applicant-sister but none appears on her behalf. In the circumstances, there seems to be no reason why this prayer should not be accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-insurance company states that once the insurance company has paid the amount the case cannot be reopened.

I however find that when the case was decided the insurance company was represented by two officers and an Advocate. In the said order it was mentioned as follows:-

"As suggested, the enhanced amount would be paid to appellant No. 1-Rajpal Kaur, widow of the deceased and would be disbursed to her in cash by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal."

The applicant was neither present before the Lok Adalat nor was she represented. The insurance company knew very well that Rajpal Kaur was not the widow of the deceased but was his sister. In the circumstances, it cannot be held to be completely blameless. However, it cannot be denied that they have also been defrauded by the aforesaid Rajpal Kaur.

Consequently, even while recalling the order dated 01.09.2006 recovery rights are granted to the insurance company against the aforesaid Rajpal Kaur by filing execution.

Application stands allowed in the above terms.

F.A.O. No. 4739 of 2004

This appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation. The award dated 06.01.2004 was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda awarding compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of death of Harbans Singh aged 35 years.

Brief facts are that on 26.03.2001 Harbans Singh and Dalbir Singh were coming from V.Jassi Pau-wali on Scooter and the scooter was being driven by Harbans Singh. Jit Singh and Roop Singh were following them on another scooter. When they reached near V.Bhucho Khurd on G.T. Road, then truck bearing No.PB-10N-0836 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and it struck against the scooter of Harbans Singh. As a result of the accident, Harbans Singh succumbed to his injuries.

As per law laid down in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , nothing has been awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Even the future prospects has not been granted. As per the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, , nothing has been granted on account of love and affection and funeral expenses.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has argued that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others'' case (supra) granted a total amount of Rs. 1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance.

In Vimal Kanwar and others'' case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the widow and a sum of Rs. 2 lac to the minor girl on account of loss of love and affection, and another sum of Rs. 1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow.

Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, I award Rs. 1 lac to the respondent No. 4-widow on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 1 lac on account of loss of consortium. I further award Rs. 1 lac to the respondent No. 5-minor son on account of loss of love and affection. I also add future prospects in the income with the addition of 50% in view of the observations made in F.A.O. No. 2990 of 2011, titled as Manjit Kaur and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, decided on 08.01.2014. I also hold that multiplier of 16 has to be applied instead of 15 in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . For the purpose of funeral expenses, I award Rs. 25,000/-. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to increase the interest to 8% on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that apart from the individual amounts the enhanced compensation shall be handed over only to the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the same proportion as directed by the Tribunal. The amount which falls in the share of the minor child will be put in a fixed deposit till he attains majority and the enhanced amount which falls in the share of the widow would also be put in a fixed deposit for two years in any Nationalized Bank. The apportionment of the compensation amount would be as per the direction of the Tribunal. It is further made clear that no proportion of the enhanced compensation shall be paid to the sisters and father of the deceased since father cannot be held to be dependent on his son and the sisters are dependent on his father.

The appeal is disposed of the above terms and the award is modified accordingly.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.