Amrik Singh And ANR v. Harpal Kaur And ANR
!""#$%& '!(&)& * !& +$,!$%&
!&!(-!, +$.
/ 0
(+$+)$1!, +$.
2 3 0
"+#,!, +$.
3 0 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?
YES .
4*
1.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/driver & owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 08.02.2013 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- to the claimant/respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2.
Brief facts of the case are !" #$ !$$%
&
&
'
&
( ) *+$, +-$## & & ) )(
) #.$ &
( ) *+$,/+0%%1 )( # (
( ( & &
(
&
( 2
&
) +)(
3
& & 24 '
24 '
#" #! !$$% 5 &
)(
0"# !,% 00, 001 "!, 74 & 3.
Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.
4.
From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in the motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley no.PB-07W-3898 by respondent No.1? OPA
2. Whether claimant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present petitioner? OPR
3. To want amount and from whom, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation if any? OPA
4. Relief."
.
Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6.
After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant/respondent No.2. However, the appellants/driver & owner were held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: , '
9 :
& )
)(
; 3 ) (
(
!" #$ !$$% & < $0 $. !$#!
&
( ) &
=
= % 3
> 0"# !0 #! !$$% !,% 00,
"!, 74 &
< ( ( $!
&
3
)
?
& &
&
#$ 7
)
#. $- !$#$@ &
)
)( ) &
## ' ) )
<
& (+& & &
(
(
7
) <
( & ) (
#!
7 ( )
)=
& )& &
8 0!$$$9+ &
A (
)
&
& )
#0 Per contra > #
!
(
& 3 ) (
+ 3
& )( ) &
(
6
& 3 (
) #"
( &
)
#.
* <
& )
)( )
& < & ) #- *
& &
+ "ISSUES NO.1 AND 3
9. Both these issues are taken up jointly being inter linked and inter connected. The onus to prove both these issues lies upon the claimant.
10. The learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the claimant suffered injuries in a Motor Vehicular Accident with a rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley no.PB007W03898 by respondent no.1 and later on claimant has died due to injuries suffered by him in Motor Vehicular Accident. In support of the case claimant Harpal Kaur who is mother of the claimant Manjit Singh appeared in the witness box as AW1. She has deposed in his affidavit Ex.AW1/A that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and her son Manjit Singh used to ride his motorcycle on a slow speed and correct side of the road. She also deposed that on 24.10.2009, the claimant Manjit Singh alongwith Manjit Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur were coming from village Adampur to village Mana on motorcycle and in the meantime due to rash driving of respondent no.1 an
0 accident took place and her son suffered injures and he was taken to DMC Ludhiana and injured Manjit Kaur was referred to Narad Hospital Hoshiarpur and her son Manjit Singh remained admitted in DMC Ludhiana up till 14.12.2009 and FIR No.34 was registered against Amrik Singh respondent no.1. She further deposed that she had spent expenditure of Rs. five lacs on the treatment of her son Manjit Singh. She also placed on the file medical bills Ex.A1 to Ex.A188 and copy of FIR A189. The injured Manjit Singh has also stepped into the witness box as AW2 and tendered his affidavit Ex.AW2/A in which he has deposed that on 24.10.2009, he alongwith Manjit Kaur wife of Tarsem Lal and Kuldip Kaur were coming from Adampur to village Mana on motorcycle bearing no.
PB0 07V06011 and the said motorcycle was driving by him on the correct side of the road and in the normal speed. He further deposed that when he reached near Mandialan petrol pump, a tractor trolley bearing no.PB007W03898 which was being driven by Amrik Singh came at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner suddenly turned towards petrol pump without blowing any horn and struck with the motorcycle and he received injuries and he was referred to DMC Ludhiana and injured Manjit Kaur was referred to Narad Hospital Hoshiarpur and he remained admitted in DMC up till 14.12.2009 and FIR no.341 under Sections 279,337,338,427 IPC was recorded at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. He also deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley bearing no.PB07W03998 by its driver respondent no.1.
He was a skilled carpenter and plumber and was earning near about Rs.15000/0 per month and he has also suffered loss of Rs.5 lacs on account of professional loss up till now.
/ in DMC and he has produced computerized bills Ex.A191 to A207 which have been issued by their hospital in the name of Manjit Singh. The claimant further examined AW4 Dr. Vishnu Gupta who has deposed that he has brought the record of Manjit Singh vide CR no.123443 and admission no.40480 and admitted on 24.10.2009 and discharged on 7.12.2009. He also deposed that patient was diagnosed to have head injury i.e. depressed fracture of front bone alongwith frontal contusions. He also deposed that patient was operated for the same i.e. elevation and removal of depressed fracture segments and evacuation of frontal contusions alongwith dura plastery. The patient was also operated for fracture femur by Ortho department. The patient was discharged in satisfactory condition on 7.12.2009. The injuries could be suffered in motor accident.
He also deposed that patient was readmitted on 12.12.2009 with generalized skin infection i.e. varicella and discharged on 14.12.2009. He also produced record Ex.A29 to A35 and also produced Ex.A35 and Ex.A36 record of follow up treatment of Dr. AK Chaughary. Ex.A36 to Ex.A207 are the summary bills of DMC Ludhiana. A perusal of entire evidence produced by the claimant it is clear that Manjit Singh suffered injuries due to motor vehicular accident.
11. The learned counsel for the claimant has argued that injured Manjit Singh was later on died. As such the claimants who are dependent and legal heirs of deceased Manjit Singh are entitled for compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant has referred ! "
#$ % & ' ( )) ** in which Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has held as under: "Pleading and Proof0Death must have been proved having caused under a Motor Vehicle Accident0 Deceased died after 3 years of the accident0
Evidence showing that death was related to the accident0Finding of Tribunal in this regard, found to be without any perversity0Deceased did not join his duty due to leg fracture0Causal connection between accident and death stood proved0Award upheld."
He further referred +$,!
-$) ./ $ 01
, 2" !!' ())) in which Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as under: "Liability of Insurance Company0Three persons riding motorcycle at time of accident with truck0 Pillion rider sustained injuries0 Tribunal held truck driver fully negligent and Insurance Company made liable0 lea that three persons were riding motorcycle due to which it lost control0No evidence that accident caused due to travelling of three persons0Therefore, Insurance Company could not avoid it liability."
He further referred 0 + / /$0
/ )
/ #$ & 3$ ,
" !' ()) 4 in which Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as under:
"Quantum0Fatal 026 years0 laimants motor and unmarried sister0Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.4,57,0000 eduction in compensation0Annual income of deceased considered to be Rs.54000 after deducting 50%, Rs.27,000 comes as dependency0 Multiplier of 13 applied0Loss of income of family comes to Rs.3,51,000, Rs.40,000 awarded for loss of love and affection0Rs.5,000 awarded for funeral expenses0Rs.7000 awarded for transport expenses0 Total compensation reduced to Rs.4,03,000."
2
12. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there is two months delay for lodging the FIR and FIR was cancelled on 15.6.2010 and claimant has also failed to examine two ladies eye witnesses. As such the rash and negligent act has not been proved rather the accident took place due to the own wrong of Manjit Singh and enquiry was made and it was held during enquiry that there is no negligency on the part of respondent no.1. He also argued that a compromise was effected with the claimant on 1.12.2009 and the claimants have received Rs.32000/0 vide compromise Ex.RW2/P3. Therefore the claimants are not entitled any compensation.
13. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents because the accident has been duly proved by the claimants and death of Manjit Singh has been proved on the file and a perusal of death certificate Ex.RW2/P2 shows that Manjit Singh has died on 13.5.2012 and he expired in Sant Baba Jawala Singh Ji Charitable Hospital Attowal, Hoshiarpur on 13.5.2012 as per certificate Ex.RW2/P1. As such the claimants are entitled for compensation.
14. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants have alleged that Manjit Singh was earning Rs.15000/0 per month and he was 27 years old and he was a carpenter and plumber but the claimants have failed to prove the net income of the deceased Manjit Singh. As such the net income of the deceased has been assessed Rs.5000/0 per month. Therefore annual income of the deceased comes to 12 x 5000=60000/0. Since the deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50% income has been deducted out of the total income of the deceased as expenditure on his person, therefore, after deduction 50%
out of the total income of the deceased the net income comes to Rs.60,000/0 - Rs.30,000/0 = Rs.30,000/0. Since the deceased was 27 years old at the time of his death and Harpal Kaur who is the mother of deceased Manjit Singh might by 50 years old, therefore, multiplier of 10 is suitable in this case and after applying multiplier 10 on the net income of the deceased, the total compensation comes to Rs.30,000/0 x 10 = Rs.3,00,000/0 and the claimants have also placed on the file medical bills for expenditure on the treatment of Manjit Singh which are about Rs.13 lacs but the bills have not been verified from any concerned doctor. Therefore, the amount for treatment of Manjit Singh has been assessed Rs.two lacs As such, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/0 and the claimants are also entitled Rs.10,000/0 as funeral expenses.
The claimants are also entitled Rs.12,000/0 for love and affection. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/0 Rs.10,000/0 + Rs.12000/0 = Rs.5,22,000/0. Since the claimants have already received Rs.32,000/0 from the respondents as per compromise Ex.RW2/P3 which has been duly proved on the file. As such this amount is liable to be deducted from the total compensation of Rs.5,22,000/0As such the total compensation comes to Rs.5,22,000/0 - Rs.32000/0 = Rs.4,90,000/0. Therefore the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,90,000/0 as compensation in equal shares from the respondents no.1 and 2 because the offending vehicle i.e. tractor trolley bearing no. PW07W03898 was not insured with any insurance company. As such the respondents no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally to the claimants.
Therefore both these issues are decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents."
#, )
4 & )
BC
#1
) &( ) )
&+
)
)
( ( /! (+&
)
( 3 &
( ) )( ( /# B C
&
/"
B2
C & ) & &
>
) +<
7 )( ) ) #% ) (
<
( $!
= (
7
( & & )
&
) < ( 5 &
)
) )
!$ )
)( #. $- !$#$
7 &
) 4 ) ) = (
) ) 7 )
<
) ) @
)
ipso facto
?
!#
(+&
( & <
= (
&
<
( &
/ = )
&( ( (+& B/!C )
& )
>+<
& & )
!!
) < )&
!" #$ !$$%
$0 $. !$#!
4
= ( )
(
)
(
)&
> ) )(
)
!0
( 8 0!$$$9+
(
)
( ( ) <
) (
!"
7 & 4 )
&
(
)
&
!.
( )
&
)(
2 3 0
Ayub/Saahil
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No