CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 23 & Anr. v. Smt. Krishna’ as both the appeals have arisen out of the award & Ors.

statement to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered at Police Station, Badhra on 7.7.2008 for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. After the death of Manjeet, offence under Section 304-A IPC was also added to the heading of the FIR. It was further alleged that at the time of accident, Manjeet was 18 years old and was studying in 9th class. He used to help his parents in agricultural and other pursuits. He was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On his treatment, an amount of F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -4- Rs.1,00,000/- was spent and another amount of Rs.25,000/-spent on his last rites. Accordingly, it was prayed that Rs.15,00,000/- be awarded as compensation. The claim petition was resisted by Vikram and Ranbir, driver and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle by filing a joint written statement. It was stated that the claimants had no locus standi to file the petition; it was vague, indefinite and not filed in accordance with law; it was denied that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle; a false case was got registered against Vikram; and the amount claimed to have been spent on treatment was highly exaggerated. Accordingly, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal for adjudication :-

1. Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Tata Spacio bearing registration No.HR-61-3181 by respondent No.1 Vikram, resulting into death of Manjeet, as alleged?OPP.

2. Whether claimants are related to deceased Manjeet as alleged ? OPP F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -5-

3. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved, whether claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP

4. Whether claim petition is vague, indefinite, not filed in accordance with provisions of law and is not maintainable? OPR

5. Whether petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition?OPR

6. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners to file the present petition? OPR

7. Relief. In support of the claim petition, the appellants examined PW1 Narender, PW2 Anil and PW3 Dr. V.K. Gupta, whereas in rebuttal Ranbir, the owner of the offending vehicle, stepped into the witness box as RW1. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the file, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Vikram resulting into the death of Manjeet. Considering the fact that the deceased used to render help to his parents in domestic affairs by attending to the guests and serving tea, etc., besides carrying out agricultural work, the Tribunal assessed such help to be equivalent to Rs.1,200/- per month or Rs.14,400/- per annum. F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -6- As father of the deceased was 42 years of age, multiplier of 14 was applied so as to award a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- on account of loss of dependency. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded on account of last rites and transportation of dead body. Besides, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded on account of costs of treatment. In all, the total compensation was assessed as Rs.3,06,600/-, which was rounded of to Rs.3,07,000/-. Vikram and Ranbir, being driver and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount alongwith interest. Counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting a sum of Rs.3,07,000/- only as compensation. The help rendered by the deceased to his parents should have been assessed to be equivalent to Rs.5,000/- per month. Multiplier of 14 applied by the Tribunal in calculating the dependency was on the lower side as the deceased was aged about 18 years. Further, cash memos./bills of purchase of medicines and undergoing various diagnostic tests were brought on record as Mark A-1 to A-87 but those have not been taken into consideration as they were not duly admitted into evidence. Accordingly, prayer has been made for enhancement of the compensation amount. F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -7- On the other hand, counsel for the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has submitted that presence of Anil at the time of the accident was not established. In case he was accompanying Manjeet on the motorcycle, he would have also received injuries. No evidence has been produced by the claimants to show that said Anil had also received injuries. Further, the FIR was registered after 12 days of the occurrence. If Anil had received injuries, he could have got the FIR registered. The delay in lodging of the FIR was with the sole purpose of falsely implicating the offending vehicle. Mere registration of the case did not mean that it was Vikram who had committed the accident. As regards the compensation amount, it is submitted that the dependency assessed was on the higher side and so also the multiplier applied. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned award be set aside by accepting the connected appeal and the claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased be dismissed with costs throughout. Having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award and the record, this Court finds that while making statement before the police on 7.7.2008, Anil had stated that on 26.6.2008 at about 10/10.30 a.m. when he was to start for the village from the tube-well of Manjeet, the latter disclosed that he also wanted to return to the village. Accordingly, he made him F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -8- sit on the pillion seat and started for the village. When they had just reached the metalled road, one Tata Spacio bearing No. HR- 61-3181 came from the side of Badhra. It was being driven by Vikram at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. He had almost stopped his motorcycle but the offending vehicle hit against his motorcycle as a result whereof he and Manjeet fell down on the road. He suffered a number of injuries while Manjeet also received injuries on his head and legs. Later on, the family members of Manjeet reached the spot and removed him to V.K. Neuro Hospital, Hisar. It was on 28.6.2008 that Anil also got himself admitted in Community Health Centre, Gopi on account of severe pain. The police had come to record his statement but he decided not to do so as he wanted Manjeet himself to make the statement. As Manjeet did not regain consciousness uptil

7.7.2008, Anil, alongwith his elder brother Ramesh Kumar, left for the Police Station, Badhra. In the Badhra chowk, they came across HC Raj Kumar to whom Anil made a statement. The statement disclosed commission of offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Accordingly, it was sent to Police Station where FIR No. 127 dated 7.7.2008 was registered at 5.30 p.m. It is true that no document has been produced to confirm the factum of receipt of injuries by PW2 Anil but in his examination-in-chief, he had stated that he had also received F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -9- injuries in the accident and due to injuries, he started feeling pain and on 28.6.2008, got him admitted in the hospital at Gopi for treatment. In his cross-examination, he again stated that he had received injuries in the accident and remained admitted in the hospital for 5/6 days. There were injuries on his face and hand. The injuries received by him on his leg were stitched. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. It may also be appropriate to mention here that during the proceedings conducted by the police subsequent to recording of the statement of Anil, copy of MLR No.KSM/60/08 dated 28.6.2008 was obtained by the police. The said MLR was in respect of injuries received by Anil. Seven blunt injuries were mentioned therein and kept under observation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Anil had not received any injury on his person during the accident or that he was not present at the time when Manjeet had received injuries in the accident. Similarly, the fact that PW2 Anil belonged to the same village as the deceased and his father was a shop-keeper in the village from whom the family of Manjeet used to purchase goods is no ground to disbelieve his presence at the spot. He had admitted that he used to do work of painting in the house of deceased Manjeet. This facts corroborates the averment made in the claim petition of Anil and Manjeet returning to the village together on a motorcycle. F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -10- He further stated that the fields of family of the deceased were at a distance of 1/1½ acres from the place of the accident. The place of accident being close, the family members of the deceased had rushed to that place and then removed Manjeet in an injured condition to V.K. Neuro Hospital, Hisar. While making statement before the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered, PW2 Anil had categorically stated that the offending vehicle was a Tata Spacio bearing registration No.HR-61-3181 and driven by Vikram, son of Nand Lal, caste Jat, resident of Karimod. When the description of the vehicle and its registration number, besides, the identity of the person, who was driving the said offending vehicle, stood clearly mentioned in his statement made to the police, it cannot be said that no such accident had occurred with the offending vehicle. It assumes significance when only Ranbir, owner of the offending vehicle, stepped into the witness-box as RW1 to deny the accident and Vikram, who was shown to have driven the offending vehicle at the time of the accident took no steps to enter the witness-box and denying the accident. Said Vikram, driver of the offending vehicle and Ranbir, owner of the offending vehicle are real brothers and both of them had filed one written statement. Both of them were represented by same counsel before the Tribunal. Apart from that, simple statement of RW1 Ranbir that F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -11- his vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident in order to extract money by the parents of the deceased is no ground to hold so when he admitted in his cross-examination that he had visited DSP, Dadri alongwith 2/4 persons after the police had taken his vehicle into custody yet no written application was given by him in this regard to any higher authority of the administration. Under these circumstances, the self-serving statement of RW1 Ranbir cannot be held to be sufficient to hold that no accident had been caused by Vikram by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is true that the accident in question had taken place on 26.6.2008 at 10/10.30 a.m. and the statement was made to the police by Anil only on 7.7.2008, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The delay of 11/12 days in making report to the police stands satisfactorily explained in his statement before the police when he stated that though the police had contacted him earlier yet he did not want to make a statement of his own. Rather, he wanted Manjeet to regain consciousness and lodge the report with the police. Only when Manjeet did not regain consciousness that Anil thought it appropriate to report the matter to the police. Accordingly, on 7.7.2008, he, alongwith his elder brother, left for the Police Station but came across HC Raj Kumar at Badhra chowk. Further, it was recorded in the police proceedings that on F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -12-

26.6.2008, a telephonic call was received by police from Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar to the effect that Manjeet was lying admitted in V.K. Neuro Hospital on account of the injuries. Upon this, ASI Roshan Lal reached Hisar on 27.6.2008 and sought opinion from the doctor, who declared the injured unfit to make a statement. On 28.6.2008, another ruqa alongwith MLR in respect of Anil was received in the Police Station. Though the doctor declared him fit to make a statement after the SHO himself reached hospital at Gopi but Anil did not make any statement. Subsequently, on 5.7.2008, HC Raj Kumar again went to Hisar and obtained opinion from the doctor as regards fitness of Manjeet but he was declared to be not fit. On 7.7.2008 when HC Raj Kumar alongwith fellow officials was present at Badhra chowk, Anil appeared before him and made a statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging of the FIR. Whatever delay occurred stands explained. In view of the above, it is held that the accident in question was caused by Vikram by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the offending vehicle stood owned by Ranbir. As regards quantum of compensation, it may be noticed that the claimants have not produced any F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -13- evidence/document to show that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The deceased was 18 years of age and said to be studying in 9th class. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that he had been only helping his parents in domestic affairs, like looking after the guests and doing agricultural work. Therefore, his dependency was rightly calculated as Rs.1,200/- per month or Rs.14,400/- per annum. Age of the parents of the deceased is required to be taken into consideration while finding the suitable multiplier. PW1 Naredner, father of the deceased, stated his age as 42 years while stepping in the witness-box. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, appropriate multiplier in such like situation is ‘14’, which, as mentioned above, was applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total dependency has been rightly determined by the Tribunal to be Rs.2,01,600/- and, therefore, no case is made out for any enhancement on that count. Similarly, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded as compensation for performing last rites and transportation of the dead body, does not call for any interference. However, as regard costs of treatment, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased. While appearing as PW1, Narender, father of deceased Manjeet, stated that he had F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -14- spent Rs.3,00,000/- on the treatment of Manjeet at V.K. Neuro Hospital, Hisar. PW3 Dr. V.K. Gupta testified that he had charged Rs.1,47,150/- as hospital bill, including ICU charges, ventilator charges, operation charges, gas charges but excluding medicines. He also testified about the medical bills and investigation charges Mark A-1 to A-87. The Tribunal did not rely upon Mark A-1 to A-87 on the ground that they were not duly admitted into evidence as no shop-keeper from where medicines were purchased was produced. However, this Court is of the considered view that the various amounts, as mentioned on medicine bills and investigation charges Mark A-1 to A-87 can also be awarded to the claimants as PW3 Dr. V.K. Gupta had specifically stated that Mark A-1 to A-87 were as per Bed Head Ticket. Merely because he had not brought on record the prescription slips given to the patient or his attendant to fetch the medicines as no such record was maintained or that the bills Mark A-1 to A-87 were neither issued nor signed by him or he had not brought any record of the same is no ground to hold that the amount spent on the treatment as reflected in bills Mark A-1 to A-87 had not been incurred by the claimants. Bills Mark A-1 to A-87 are in the name of Manjeet and issued by different medical shops, namely, Balaji Medicos, Kisan Medicine Centre, M/s Lifeline Medicos, N.P. Medicos, Ishwar Bharti Medical Hall, Shri F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -15- Krishna Medicos, Nalwa Laboratories Private Limited, Chandigarh X-ray, Manglam Diagnostics, Manglam Blood Bank, M/s Sawan Medical Hall, Meditech, 24 Hours Chemist shop and R.K. Viklang Kendra and Surgical House. In almost all of them, the name of the doctor, who had prescribed those medicines or tests, stood mentioned as Dr. V.K. Gupta. The bills being 87 in all, it would be reasonable and justified to hold that an amount of Rs.87,000/- was spent on medicine and various diagnostic tests. Apart from the same, PW3 Dr. V.K. Gupta, had testified that he had charges a sum of Rs.1,47,150/- as hospital bill (Ex.P-10). When both the aforementioned amounts are added up, it is held that the claimants had incurred a total amount of Rs.2,34,150/- on account of cost of treatment and purchase of medicines, besides, getting various diagnostic tests conducted. The said amount can be rounded of to Rs.2,30,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of cost of treatment. The claimants are entitled to enhancement of the same to Rs.2,30,000/-, i.e. by Rs.1,30,000/-. Of course the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.1,30,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its actual realization. Resultantly, the present appeal, i.e. FAO No. 4394 of 2010 filed by the claimants is accepted by enhancing the F.A.O. No. 4394 of 2010 -16- compensation amount by Rs.1,30,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of passing of the impugned award till its actual realisation. The responsibility of the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation amount shall be joint and several. The enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest shall be paid to the claimants in cash in equal shares. The connected appeal, i.e. FAO No. 6309 of 2010 filed by owner of the offending vehicle is, hereby, dismissed. July 23, 2012 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE