The Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation vs Gurdev Singh and others Gurdev Singh and others Vs Managing Director, Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation and others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The above mentioned two appeals are directed against the award dated 31.05.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, "the Tribunal"). Gurdev Singh and three others, the claimants had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs for the death of Surjit Kaur in a roadside accident that took place on 1.12.2008. Learned Tribunal vide the impugned award has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,42,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. The liability to pay the compensation has been held to be joint and several of respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e., Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation and Kulwant Singh, driver of bus bearing registration No. PB-11N-9536. While FAO No. 5712 of 2011 has been brought by the owner for reduction in compensation, FAO No. 7238 of 2011 has been brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Surjit Kaur, the deceased had been travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-11-Q-9513 as pillion rider of Gurdev Singh, appellant No. 1 on 30.11.2008. Having met with the accident, she was taken with Gurdev Singh to Civil Hospital, Nabha where from they were referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Surjit Kaur was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh where she died on 1.12.2008. She was 45 years of age and was an income tax assessee. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent on her treatment, transportation of dead body and last rites. A sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs is, therefore, claimed as compensation.

The aforesaid averments are denied by the respondents who have claimed that the compensation sought to be highly excessive.

Learned Tribunal took into account, Ex. P11, a copy of income tax assessment for the year 2006-2007. As per that document, the gross income of deceased Surjit Kaur in that year had been Rs. 1,30,000/-. She also took into consideration another income tax return, Ex. P10 as per which, the annual income of the deceased was in a sum of Rs. 1,34,310/-. On these returns, she took the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd from the said income as the expenses incurred by the deceased on herself, the annual dependency of the claimants was found to be in a sum of Rs. 88,000/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 45 years, multiplier of 14 was applied and a sum of Rs. 12,32,000/- has been found to have been lost in the death of Surjit Kaur. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added in the name of funeral expenses and loss of consortium and as such, a sum of Rs. 12,42,000/- is assessed as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending bus has contended that the amount awarded is on the higher side. According to him, as the compensation has been awarded to claimant no. 1, the deduction of 1/3rd was on lower side. According to him, the dependency should have been half.

Learned counsel for the owner besides making submission on the deduction could not point out any defect in the calculation of the compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that deduction should have been 1/4th. According to her, the claimants are husband and three sons of the deceased. According to her, even though the sons are major, still they are legal representatives of the deceased who are entitled to maintain the claim petition u/s 166(1) of the Act.

Nothing has come on record to show that claimants No. 2 to 4 were having their own income and that they were independent. The son may attain any age, he will always look to his earning mother for help. They are the class-I heirs of the deceased and, therefore, are legal representatives of the deceased. They can maintain the claim petition u/s 166(1) of the Act. Therefore, there are four claimants in this case and as such, as per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the deduction should have been 1/4th.

Taking the steps back for calculating compensation after applying the deduction of 1/4th, I find a sum of Rs. 99,000/- as the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased. Multiplying it by 14, the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Surjit Kaur comes to Rs. 13,86,000/-. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 14,01,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Consequently, FAO No. 5712 of 2011 is found to have no merit and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. FAO No. 7238 of 2011 is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 12,42,000/- to Rs. 14,01,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as allowed by learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization thereof. Out of the amount of compensation, a sum of Rs. 8,01,000/- shall fall to the share of Gurdev Singh, claimant-appellant No. 1 while a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each shall fall to the share of other claimants, namely Tejinder Singh, Paramjit Singh and Varinder Singh.