Kuldip Singh, J.@mdashDaljit Kaur, widow of Boria Singh deceased, who was one of the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa, has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that Daljit Kaur-widow, her son Parvinder Singh and daughter Rajwinder Kaur, had filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation on account of death of Boria Singh in a motor vehicle accident on 25.4.2000 at 2:30 p.m. in the area of village Bir Kalan.
2. It was stated that Boria Singh, since deceased, along with Sukhdev Singh son of Kartar Singh, Peon, Markfed Mansa, were coming from Sangrur to Mansa on 25.4.2000 in Maruti Car No. CH01R-6474 being driven by Boria Singh. Sukhdev Singh was sitting by his side on front seat. When the car went 11/2 kilometers ahead of village Birkalan towards Bhikhi, it was at about 2:30 p.m. In the meanwhile, four-wheeler/tempo bearing registration No. PB-31-2004 being driven rashly and negligently by Darshan Singh, respondent, came from behind and hit the said car. After the accident, Darshan Singh sped away along with the offending vehicle. The car fell into the pits along the road. Boria Singh, since deceased, suffered injuries. The car was extensively damaged. Boria Singh was admitted to Civil Hospital, Mansa, from where he was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, as his condition was serious. He remained admitted there till he succumbed to the injuries on 3.5.2000. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted.
3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle in their written statement claimed that false report was lodged by the local police in connivance with the claimant. Deceased had no valid driving licence to drive the car. The car of the deceased did not meet with any accident with four-wheeler, driven by Darshan Singh and owned by Balwinder Kumar-respondents No. 1 and 2.
4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company took all the legal objections. It also took the plea that Darshan Singh, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was stated that deceased was driving the car at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
5. From the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether on 25.4.2000, at about 2:30 p.m. in the area of Bir Kalan, P.S. Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, Boria Singh son of Jagar Singh, deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries in a motor Vehicle accident on account of rash or negligent driving of four-wheeler/tempo No. PB-31/2004 by respondent No. 1 and on account of these injuries, he died at Ludhiana on 3.5.2000? OPA.
(2) Whether the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased? OPA.
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and from which of the respondents? OPA
(4) Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3.
(5) Relief.
6. Issue No. 2 was later on recasted and additional Issue No. 4-A was framed as under:
(4-A) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of the alleged damage caused to Maruti Car No. CHO1R-6474 in a motor vehicle accident on 25.4.2000, at about 2:30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of temp No. PB-31/2004 in the area of Sunam by respondent No. 1, if so, to what extent? OPA.
7. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 drove his vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,01,535/- in favour of the applicant-Daljit Kaur. It was further ordered that out of the amount of compensation, a sum of Rs. 8,07,789/- shall be deposited jointly and severally by all the respondents within two months from the date of award, failing which, the applicant Daijit Kaur shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of actual payment. Amount of Rs. 93,746/- was ordered to be exclusively deposited by respondent-Insurance Company within the said period.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company and gone through the entire case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in this case the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of ''3'' and granting Rs. 5000/- only for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection and only Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that the deceased was having an agricultural land from where he suffered loss of income.
10. On the other hand learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also argued that the Tribunal made the calculation in the manner which is not acceptable. The Tribunal observed that deceased was to retire on 28th February 2001 i.e. only after 10 months of his death. He would received the retiral benefit to the tune of Rs. 6,42,349/- whereas on account of his death, his legal representatives were given a sum of Rs. 4,36,675/- only. In this way, they have suffered a net loss of Rs. 2,05,674/-. However, the Tribunal, allowed all the medical bills Ex. A-2 to Ex. A-61 amounting to Rs. 64,979/-. In this case it was noticed by the Tribunal that the income of the deceased was Rs. 22,089/- per month. He was working in the Markfed. On the basis of salary certificate Ex. A1 his annual income was calculated as Rs. 2,65,068/-. First of all, I would calculate the loss of income on account of death of Boria Singh. In round figure the income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs. 22,000/-, out of which 1/3rd is to be deducted as personal expenses i.e. Rs. 7333/-. The dependency of the claimant comes to Rs. 14,667/-. In round figure it comes to Rs. 14,700/-. In this case the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 3''. As per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company while relying upon
12. I am of the view that in the given circumstances it is just and proper that income before and after the retirement should be separately calculated. Therefore, for the loss of income for the one year till retirement, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,76,004/-. It is to be assumed that after the retirement the deceased was to get only pension. There his income is reduced by half and is to be taken as Rs. 11,000/-. After excluding Rs. 6366/- i.e. 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the dependency of the claimant after retirement comes to Rs. 7334/- for next eight years. Therefore, the amount of compensation for next 8 years comes to Rs. 7334 x 12 x 8 i.e. Rs. 7,04,064/-. I am of the view that since on account of premature death of the claimant, the claimant suffered the loss of Rs. 2,05,074/- on account of retiral benefits, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the said amount to the claimant. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are affirmed.
13. Now coming to the other issues i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral etc, I am of the view that accident took place in the year 2000. In these circumstances, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of consortium and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of funerals expenses and last rites is allowed. The bills of Rs. 64,979/- have already been allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs. 93,746/- on account of damage to vehicle. The amount of compensation thus comes to Rs. 13,43,867/-.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that nothing has been allowed to the claimant on account of loss of agricultural income. He had claimed loss of Rs. 1000/- per 8 kanals of land. He has produced copy of Jamabandhi Ex. A-68 for the year 1999-2000 that deceased owned 75 kanals of land. I am of the view that there is no loss of income on account of agricultural income as the land is still there. At the maximum there can be loss of management and supervision. However, in this case it is also not to be lost sight that no compensation was awarded to claimants No. 2 and 3, son and daughter of the deceased and only widow was granted compensation. It is also established law that the compensation is to be just and fair. It cannot be a wind fall. Therefore, the compensation awarded in this case is just and reasonable and no further compensation on account of loss of management is to be allowed. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is allowed. In the modification of the award of the Tribunal, in place of Rs. 9,17,745/-, a compensation of Rs. 13,43,867/- is granted. The enhanced amount shall be paid with 9% interest from the date of its filing of the present petition till the date of its realization.
