Smt. Jai Kaur & Ors. v. Krishan & Ors.

Gurgaon on 11.10.1990 stands challenged by the claimants to the extent of granting them inadequate compensation on account of death of Sarjit Singh in a motor-vehicular accident. Vide impugned award, the Tribunal granted the claimants an amount of Rs.1,53,600/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable in respect of the remaining amount of Rs.1,03,600/-. All the respondents were made FAO No. 939 of 1990 -2- liable to pay costs and interest @ 12% per annum from 10.10.1986 till realization, proportionate to their liability to pay the compensation. In their petition, the claimants averred that on 24.9.1986 at about 5.30 p.m. Sarjit Singh and Surrender Kumar were going on scooter No. DHU-1103 to village Jharsa from Gurgaon. The scooter belonged to Surrender Kumar. It was being driven by Sarjit Singh and Surrender Kumar was riding pillion. After crossing the bye-pass of G.T. Road in the area of Gurgaon, the scooter was proceeding towards village Jharsa, when truck No. DHL-3707 came from the opposite direction driven rashly, negligently, at a high speed and in a zig-zag manner by respondent No.1 Krishan. The scooter was on the correct left hand side of the road but the truck driver did not control his vehicle and by steering it in the wrong direction, knocked down the scooter as a result of which Sarjit Singh and Surrender Kumar fell down and suffered multiple injuries. The truck came to a halt after covering a further distance of about 50 yards but then Krishan sped away in his truck. Sarjit Singh died as a result of injuries at the spot and the scooter was also damaged. Surrender Kumar, who suffered injuries, was removed to hospital and on his statement the first information report was recorded which led to registration of a criminal case under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC against Krishan in Police Station Gurgaon. Pleading that Sarjit Singh deceased was a healthy person of 27 years, it was stated that he was an agriculturist and a tractor FAO No. 939 of 1990 -3- mechanic. He was running a tractor repair workshop in village Jharsa and his income was Rs.1800/- per month. A total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed. Daryao Singh, the owner of the offending truck was arrayed as respondent No.2. Respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte and an ex parte judgment and award was passed on 2.3.1987 in favour of the claimants and against respondents No.1 and 2. The ex parte judgment and award were later set aside and the particulars of insurance were disclosed and the New India Insurance Company, Gurgaon was arrayed as respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle. A joint written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 in which the factum of accident was not denied specifically and it was averred that the deceased was not a skilled motor mechanic and his income had been put at a much exaggerated figure and a fanciful amount had been claimed as compensation. A separate written statement was filed by respondent No.3 in which the allegations were denied. Apart from pleading that the income of the deceased and amount of compensation claimed had been put at inflated figures, objections were raised that the petition against respondent No.3 was barred by limitation and there has been collusion between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2. This respondent pleaded that it was not under any liability to pay compensation to the FAO No. 939 of 1990 -4- claimants and that the number of the vehicle concerned was mentioned in the FIR as DEL-3707 which was not insured with it and it had no concern. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal struck the following issues:-

1. Whether Sarjit Singh died as a result of injuries suffered by him in accident with truck No. DEL-3707 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by respondent No.1?OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so how much and from whom?OPP.

3. Whether the petition is barred by limitation against respondent No.3?OPR.

4. Whether there is collusion between petitioners and respondents No.1 & 2.

5. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, learned Tribunal concluded that the death of Sarjit Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by respondent No.1. The claim petition was held to have been filed within the period of limitation. Further, there was no collusion between the claimants and respondents No.1 and 2. The claim petition was, accordingly, accepted and the claimants awarded Rs.1,53,600/- as compensation alongwith interest and costs, as mentioned above. FAO No. 939 of 1990 -5- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the evidence. According to the claimants, deceased Sarjit Singh used to earn Rs.1,500/- per month from his tractor repair workshop out of which he had been paying Rs.1,200/- per month to them for meeting the household expenses. He was 27 years of age at the time of his death. The Tribunal held that the dependency of the claimants was Rs.800/- per month and, accordingly, by applying the multiplier of '16' it awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,600/- to them as compensation. If the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month and paying Rs.1,200/- every month to the claimants for meeting the household expenses, the dependency was required to be calculated at the rate of Rs.900/- per month and not just Rs.800/- per month. Similarly, as the deceased was 27 years of age, the suitable multiplier to be applied in the case would be '18' and not '16'. Considering the aforementioned, the dependency is assessed at Rs.900/- per month or Rs.10,800/- (rounded off to Rs.11,000/-) per year. Applying the multiplier of '18', the total dependency is assessed at Rs.1,98,000/-. Apart from the aforementioned, the claimants are also entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses FAO No. 939 of 1990 -6- and Jai Kaur claimant is also entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium. In all, the claimants would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- as compensation. It is true that the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company was limited upto an amount of Rs.50,000/- but in order to ensure that the claimants get the entire amount of compensation, directions can be issued to the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of compensation to them in the first instance and, thereafter, to recover the amount beyond its liability from respondents No.1 and 2. The appeal is, accordingly, accepted by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,53,600/- to Rs.2,05,000/-. Out of the said amount, all the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to the extent of Rs.50,000/- whereas respondents No.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of the remaining amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. However, directions are issued to the respondent- Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants-appellants in the first instance and, thereafter, to recover the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- from respondents No.1 and 2. All the respondents shall be liable to pay costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from 10.10.1986, the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization, proportionate to their liability to pay the compensation. FAO No. 939 of 1990 -7- April 06, 2010 ajay-1 ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE