05.05.2025 Singh Harjit Singh v. Paramjit Kau Kaur and others
Case Details
FAO-3748 48-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 FAO-3748-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.05.2025 Singh Harjit Singh .…Appellant Versus Paramjit Kau Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None for the appellant. Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for r te for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 to 6 . 4 to 6. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No. 7-Insurance rance Co. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. CM-12237 7-CII-2017 Application is allowed as praye prayed for. Photocopy of rance Insurance Certificate/Policy No. No. 2002003114 03114P103938481 dated 28.08.201 ring .08.2014 of motorcycle bearing registration ation No. PB-02-AD-5034, owned b t is ned by the applicant-appellant is taken on reco on record as Annexure A-1, subject to ject to all just exceptions. FAO-3748 3748-2017 (O&M) 1. The present appeal has been f been filed by Harjit Singh, owner- cum-driver river of the motor-cycle bearing ring registration No. PB-02-AD- 5034/offendi ffending vehicle, laying challenge to 017, nge to the Award dated 30.01.2017, passed by by the learned Motor Accident itsar cident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.08 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3748 48-2017 (O&M) -2- (hereinafter nafter referred to as ‘the learned T im ned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bea n bearing MACT Case No. 08/73 016/ 08/73 of 2016 dated 06.01.2016/ 07.01.2016 2016 filed by claimants/respondents nder ndents No. 1 to 3 herein, under Section 166 n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Ac and es Act, 1988 was allowed; and compensatio nsation to the tune of ₹11,36,400/- al per along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from from the date of filing of petitio was petition till actual realization was awarded. Th The 03 claimants are the: i) widow widow; and ii) 02 sons of deceased- Gurdeep Sin ep Singh who was stated to be 51 year 1 years old at the time of death. 2. Brief facts as pleaded by the c ition the claimants in the claim petition are that on 0 t on 08.04.2015, Gurdeep Singh (dece ingh (deceased) along with Harjit Singh was going fr oing from their house i.e. Amritsar to ycle tsar to Bhikhiwind on a motorcycle bearing regi g registration No. PB-02-AD-5034. ing 5034. The motorcycle was being driven by H by Harjit Singh/appellant herein in ner, in in a rash and negligent manner, whereas Gur as Gurdeep Singh (deceased) was a pi .M. as a pillion rider. Around 8:30 A.M. when they re they reached in the area of Bus Stand e, a Stand Mannan, in the meantime, a School Bus l Bus bearing registration No. PB-02 eing 02-AT-9721 came there being driven by B by Baljit Singh/respondent No. 4 he gent . 4 herein, in a rash and negligent manner and and hit with the aforesaid motorcycl ingh orcycle, upon which Gurdeep Singh and Harjit arjit Singh fell down on the road ngh, e road. Deceased-Gurdeep Singh, received mu ed multiple injuries and was taken to ital, ken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Gu sar. Gurdeep Singh succumbed to the i the to the injuries suffered by him in the accident on nt on 03.05.2015. A sum of ₹70,000 ical 70,000/- was spent on the medical treatment of ent of the deceased. Post-mortem of t ased m of the dead body of the deceased was got cond ot conducted by the police. The accide and accident took place due to rash and negligent dr ent driving of appellant and respond bus espondent No. 4/driver of the bus RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.08 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3748 48-2017 (O&M) -3- which cause caused the death of the deceased. FI
Legal Reasoning
015 sed. FIR No. 104 dated 22.09.2015 under Sectio Sections 304-A/279, 337 and 338 IPC lice PC was also registered at Police Station Chab n Chabal, on the statement of respond spondent No. 1-Paramjit Kaur, eye- witness of th s of the accident. At the time of accide ingh accident, deceased - Gurdeep Singh was age aro ge around 48 years; and was doing was doing work of Carpenter; and was earning ₹1 15,000/- per month. The deceased lthy ceased was quite hale and healthy and was not as not suffering from any disease at th No. e at the time of death. Claimant No. 1 is the wid e widow, claimants No. 2 and 3 are and 3 are the sons of the deceased and they have n ave no source of income and were the d were fully dependents upon the income of th e of the deceased. The untimely deat used y death of the deceased has caused great loss to oss to the claimants. 3. The learned Tribunal on the ba ence the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced bef ed before it concluded that deceased on ased - Gurdeep Singh, had died on 03.05.2015 2015 due to the injuries suffered by ular red by him in the motor vehicular accident that nt that took place on 08.04.2015 due t e of due to the composite negligence of the appellant pellant and respondent No. 4.As such, such, appellant was directed to pay 50% of the the aforesaid compensation as it w e of as it was found that on the date of accident the nt the offending motor-cycle bearing earing registration No. PB-02-AD- 5034 was n was not insured; and respondents N iver, ents No. 4 to 6 (being the driver, owner, and , and insurer, respectively of the bus bus bearing registration No. PB- 02-AT-9721 9721), were also held jointly and the y and severally liable to pay the remaining 5 ing 50% of the compensation amo with amount to claimants along with interest @ t @ 7.5% per annum from the date o till date of filing the claim petition till actual realiza realization. RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.08 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3748 48-2017 (O&M) -4- 4. In the first round of hearing, lea
Legal Reasoning
llant ng, learned counsel for the appellant had sought a ught a pass-over. However, in the sec ared he second round, none has appeared on behalf o half of the appellant to argue the m sent the matter. Therefore, the present appeal being l being of the year 2017, is being hear ence g heard and decided in the absence of learned co ned counsel for the appellant. 5. As noted above, the liability t ned ility to pay 50% of the impugned compensatio nsation was fixed by the learned Tri t on ed Tribunal, upon the appellant on the ground t ound that on the date of accident the not t the offending motorcycle was not insured. How d. However, the appellant has place y of placed on record a photocopy of Insurance nce Certificate/Policy No. 2002003114P103938481 200 ated dated 28.08.2014 2014 of motorcycle bearing registra 4 as egistration No. PB-02-AD-5034 as Annexure A ure A-1. The said policy is valid from lid from 27.08.2014 to midnight on 26.08.2015 2015. This shows that on the date of , the ate of accident i.e. 08.04.2015, the offending m ing motorcycle was validly insured. 50% ured. As such, liability to pay 50% of the compe compensation could not have been imp en imposed upon the appellant. 6. At this stage, ld. counsel for airly l for respondent No.7, very fairly admitted tha ed that verification of the aforesaid po een aid policy (Annexure A-1) has been got done by ne by the Insurance Company and it h date nd it has been found that on the date of accident, ident, the offending motorcycle was v f the was validly insured. A copy of the report dated dated 20.02.2025 to this effect is han nsel is handed over in Court by counsel for responde pondent No. 7,which is taken on recor record. 7. As regards the quantum of laim of compensation, in the claim petition age n age of the deceased was mentioned per tioned as 48 years. However, as per Postmortem ortem Report Ex. P-1, the deceased e of was 51 years old at the time of death. It was It was pleaded by the claimants that th as a that the deceased was working as a RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.08 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3748 48-2017 (O&M) -5- carpenter an ter and was earning ₹15,000/- per mo the per month. However, except for the bald stateme tatement of claimant No. 1, no docume ced ocumentary evidence was produced by the claim claimants to prove the said income o , the come of the deceased. As such, the learned Trib d Tribunal rightly assessed income of per me of the deceased as ₹8,000/- per month. The . The learned Tribunal has added 15 ects. ed 15% towards future prospects. However, as ver, as per law laid down by the Hon e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, , n, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882, age of the d the deceased being 51, the learned T ded rned Tribunal ought to have added 10% toward towards future prospects. As claima laimants are three in number, ld. Tribunal has al has correctly made deduction of 1 n of 1/3rd. As the deceased was 51 years of age of age at the time of accident, multip een multiplier of 11 has correctly been applied. How However, under the Conventional unal tional Heads, the learned Tribunal had awarded warded exorbitant amount of ₹25,000 ses; 25,000/- towards funeral expenses; ₹1,00,000/- - towards loss of love and affect loss affection; ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of estate; and te; and ₹1,00,000/- as consortium to re f the m to respondent No. 1/widow of the deceased. 8. As such, the compensation awa n awarded to respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants i ants is re-assessed as under: - Details Income e prospects Future prosp ction Deduction Monthly lo hly loss of dency dependency Multiplier loss loss of Total dency dependency Loss rtium consortium Love affection and of the Before Tribunal ₹8000/- per month 15% (₹1200/-) 1/3rd(₹3066/-) ₹6134/- 11 6134 x 12 x 11 = ₹ 8,09,600/- ₹1,00,000/- to claimant No. 1 ₹1,00,000/- Revised compensation ₹8000/- per month 10% (₹800/-) 1/3rd(₹2933/-) ₹5867/- 11 5867 x 12 x 11 = ₹7,74,444/- ₹48000 x 3 = ₹1,44,000/- NIL RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.08 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3748 48-2017 (O&M) -6- ₹25,000/- ₹18,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹11,34,600/- ₹18,000/- ₹9,54,444/- 7.5% per annum ₹9,54,444/- 6% per annum of Estate ensation Funeral expenses Loss of Esta Total compensatio Interest Revised am of compensati to be pai the claiman ensation e paid to aimants sed amount 9. Ld. Counsel for the claimants/r not ants/respondents no.1 to 3 does not dispute the a e the above calculation. 10.
Decision
In view of the above discussio ussion, the present appeal is hereby allowed in in the above terms. The entire of ntire amount of compensation of ₹9,54,444/– – shall be paid by the responden long ondent No.7 to the claimants along with interest nterest at the rate of 6% per annum. 11. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 05.05.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.08 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.