Smt. Sita Sharma and Another vs Kulwant Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment will dispose of FAO No. 378 of 1988 filed by Smt. Sita Sharma and others and FAO No. 547 of 1988 filed by Kulwant Singh, as these arise from the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, dated 1.2.1988.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 1.2.1988, on a claim petition filed by the claimants under Sections 92-A and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- as compensation on account of the death of Ram Mohan Sharma, Junior Engineer, aged 35 years, who died in a vehicular accident on 13.12.1986. The owner of the offending vehicle was absolved of the liability to pay compensation and the same was fastened on the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Kulwant Singh.

Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have filed FAO 378 of 1988 for enhancement of compensation while Kulwant Singh driver has filed FAO 547 of 1988 challenging his liability to pay compensation.

The challenge to the award by the claimants is that the Tribunal had erred in absolving the owner of the offending vehicle from his liability to pay compensation. The learned counsel contends that it has not been disputed that Shri Alakh Sahibzada was the owner of the offending vehicle and Kulwant Singh was a partner in the Machinery Shop with his son Raghbir Singh. The counsel further contends that Kulwant Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle, was given the keys of the Jeep by son of the owner, who would be deemed to be in possession of the offending vehicle even if the jeep was being driven by Kulwant Singh.

The other plea is that dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly assessed.

Mr. K.C. Bhatia learned counsel for Kulwant Singh in FAO No. 547 of 1988 contends that the liability to pay compensation is joint and several.

After having perused the paper book, I find that there is substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.

It has been proved on record that the deceased was of 35 years of age who was employed as Junior Engineer and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2473/-. In view of the settled principle of law, the dependency of the claimants on the deceased would be 2/3rd, i.e. Rs. 1650/- per moth, i.e. Rs. 1650/- x 12 Rs. 19,800/- annually. By applying a multiplier of 16 the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 3,16,800/- compensation on account of the death of Ram Mohan Sharma along with 12% interest from the date of claim petition.

The other point for determination is as to who is to pay compensation.

It has not been disputed that Shri Alakh Sahibzada is the owner of the offending vehicle. He had given his Jeep to his on Raghbir Singh PW2 and his son further gave the keys of the Jeep to Kulwant Singh and permitted him to drive the Jeep on the fateful day. It is further proved on the record that keys of the jeep were lying in the jeep. Had the keys not been left in the jeep, the said Kulwant Singh would not have driven it, The proposition of law is settled that if the vehicle is left unattended, then the owner of the vehicle is liable for any mishap. The plea of the owner of the jeep that he had attained Sanyas is not of any substance. Even if he had attained Sanyas, the ownership of the vehicle remained with him and he is vicariously liable.

In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the driver Kulwant Singh, i.e. FAO 547 of 1988 is allowed to the extent that the liability to pay compensation would be joint i.e. of Kulwant Singh driver and Alakh Sahibzada - the owner of the offending vehicle.

The appeal filed by the claimants, i.e. FAO 378 of 1988 is also allowed and as already mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, they are held entitled to Rs. 3,16,800/- as compensation along with 12% interest from the date of claim petition. The amount falling to the share of the minors is to be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit and they shall be entitled to withdraw the same on attaining majority.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.