Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Patiala & Anr. v. Rekha Garg & Ors.

FIR No. 241 dated 29.5.2007 was lodged with the police station Sadar, Patiala. The claimants were the widow and children of the deceased. The claim petition was contested by the appellants i.e. the owner and the driver, by raising preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition. It was also stated by the appellants, that the claimants had no cause of action to file the petition, which was said to be bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary FAO No. 3022 of 2010 -3- parties i.e. owner and insurer of Tata Indica car No. PB-11-U-2941. It was also alleged, that the claimants had concealed the true and material facts. It was further alleged, that deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Other allegations regarding age, work and income of the deceased, were also denied. A stand was taken, that FIR was falsely registered against respondent No.3. There was total denial about the involvement of the bus in the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :-

1. Whether on 29.5.2007 Naresh Kumar Garg died in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.3?OPP

2. Whether claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and are entitled compensation and from whom?OPP

3. Whether respondent No.3 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR

5. Whether the claim petition is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of parties?OPR

6. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held on FAO No. 3022 of 2010 -4- issue No.1, that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus No. PB-11-Y-7645 by respondent No.3, which resulted in death of deceased Naresh Kumar Garg. On issue No.2, the claimants were held the legal heirs of the deceased, and were held entitled to the compensation. Issue No.3 was decided against the appellants, as driving licence Ex. R-1 was proved on record, whereas issues No. 4 & 5 were also decided against the appellants. The learned Tribunal on the question of income took into consideration the fact, that the deceased was a Government Contractor, and was an income tax assessee. Income tax returns of four years were proved on record. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,47,000/- (Rupees two lac and forty seven thousand only) per annum, out of which 1/3rd amount was deducted towards his personal expenses, and the annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 1, 65,000/- (Rupees one lac and sixty five thousand only), by applying the multiplier of '13', in view the age of the deceased, the compensation was assessed at Rs.21,45,000/- (Rupees twenty one lac and forty five thousand only), to which another sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium, was added. The total compensation came to Rs. 21,55,000/- (Rupees twenty one lac and fifty five thousand only). The learned counsel for the appellants challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1, by contending ,that FAO No. 3022 of 2010 -5- stand of the claimants was patently false, as the bus due to some technical defect was parked on the left side of the road, whereas the Driver and Conductor of the bus had gone to PRTC office for getting assistance for repair. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in view of the stand of the Driver and Conductor, it could not be said, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus, as held by the learned Tribunal. On consideration, I find no force in this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. The claimants, in support of their case, examined eye witness to the accident, who supported the version given in the claim petition. Though, the appellant produced the Driver and the Conductor, to support their version. Their evidence was not believed for the reason, that they failed to produce any document or application submitted to the PRTC office for getting the bus repaired. Therefore, on preponderance of the evidence, and the respective stands taken by the parties, the learned Tribunal held, that the driver of the offending bus was negligent. The finding has been recorded on appreciation of evidence, which deserves to be upheld, as on appreciation of evidence, no other view is possible, than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.2, qua the quantum of compensation. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was, that the last income tax return should not have been taken into FAO No. 3022 of 2010 -6- consideration, as it was filed after the death of the deceased, therefore, there were chances of showing more income to claim higher compensation. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted, for the reason, that it is not an isolated income tax return, which was filed by the claimants, but he was a regular income tax payee. In addition to the income tax returns, the claimants had also placed on record the contract being executed by him to prove, that the income of the deceased was much. The finding of the learned Tribunal shows, that it did not take note of certain other incomes of the deceased, which was claimed in addition to one shown in income tax returns i.e. the income from three trucks. This shows, that the learned Tribunal only accepted the admissible evidence, which was beyond doubt. The learned Tribunal also imposed a cut of 1/3rd for personal expenses, though evidence had come on record, that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) per annum was being paid for two children. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the assessment of the income is on the higher side, also deserves to be rejected. No other argument was raised. In view of the findings recorded above, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

27.5.2010 'sp' ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) JUDGE