Baghel Singh & Anr. v. Meeta Rani & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle are before this Court challenging the award dated 3.6.2008, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the appellants were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Briefly, the facts are that on 24.4.2005, Raj Singh, aged about 34 years, who was working as a constable, was going towards Jallalabad on his scooter bearing registration no. PB-30-B-4130. When he reached near taxi stand, opposite grain market, Jallalabad, truck bearing registration no. RJ-13-1G-0754, driven by appellant no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came and struck against the scooter. As a result of which Raj Singh fell down and his head was crushed. He died at the spot. FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants filed claim petition which was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The appellants were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are not based on any cogent and convincing evidence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The identity of the driver of the offending vehicle is in doubt as the alleged eye witnesses had stated that the driver of the truck ran away from the place of occurrence. No identification parade was conducted. It was also submitted that compensation granted to the claimants is on higher side considering the age of the deceased and his income. The family of the deceased has been compensated by the government as the deceased was employed as constable in the Punjab Police. FAO No. 2090 of 2008 -2- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. To prove the death of Raj Singh in the accident in question, the claimants produced sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence on record, in the form of statements of eye-witnesses, PW2 Dr. Hans Raj, FIR, Ex. P5 and post mortem report, Ex. P2. As per statement of PW3 Jarnail Singh and PW5 Paramjit Singh, Baghel Singh appellant was driving the truck bearing registration no. RJ-13-1G-0754. There was no evidence produced by the appellants which could reveal that the claimants or the police had any enmity with them. It is only due to the reason that the offending vehicle was not insured that the appellants are trying to escape from satisfying the award. As far as grant of compensation is concerned, it cannot be said that the same is on higher side considering the age and dependency of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of death was about 34 years and he was getting salary of Rs. 10,510/- per month. He left behind widow, three minor children and widow mother (however, no claim was granted to the mother of the deceased as she was proceeded against ex-parte before the Tribunal). Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121, laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of calculation of compensation in the form of determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC FAO No. 2090 of 2008 -3- 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” The learned Tribunal after considering the age and salary of the deceased and number of dependents, assessed Rs. 80,000/- as annual dependency and applied multiplier of 12 and granted a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- to the claimants, which as per aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court cannot be said to be on higher side. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellants before this court shall be transferred to the learned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. Upholding of award in the appeal by the driver and owner will not prejudice the appeal, if any, filed by the claimants, which shall be considered on its own merits.

6.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) Judge