SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Raj) 842

Rajasthan High Court
Honble DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Satender Kaur & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Jagdeep Singh & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 367 of 1994
Decided On : May 31, 2007

Advocates Appeared:
Vijay Agarwal, for Appellants B.S.Sandhu, Sanjeev Johari with Meenakshi Maheshwari, for Respondents

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 166 – Quantification of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss – Death of 30 years youth – Lack of evidence of earning – Dependents widow and two children – Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- – Held – In absence of evidence of earning, assuming his minimum wages as Rs. 1500/- p.m. and applying multiplier of 17, the tribunal should have quantified the compensation – Entitled to Rs. 2,04,000/- for pecuniary loss and Rs. 26,000/- for non-pecuniary loss with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on enhanced amount – Liability of insurer is not limited.

       

Honble MAHESHWARI, J.–This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 09.02.1994 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Claim Case No.95/1987 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of accidental death of Amrik Singh (30 years), husband of the claimant No.1 and father of the claimants Nos.2 & 3 in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim application against the transferee owner, driver, and insurer of the vehicle involved in accident.

(2). The claimants, wife and two minor children of the vehicular accident victim Amrik Singh, submitted the claim application on 04.03.1987 on the averments with reference to an FIR lodged by Gopi Ram (non-applicant No.5) that on 04.12.1986 at about 7.00 a.m., while he (Gopi Ram) was taking his tractor bearing registration No. RRK 6169 towards Anupgarh, an oncoming jeep bearing registration No. RRK 233 hit against the trolley of the tractor and came to halt 20 paces ahead; the tractor driver and his brother reached the jeep whose driver stated his name Kewal Kumar and it was found that Amrik Singh, an occupant of the jeep had expired due to head injuries and another occupant Paramjeet Singh sustained injuries; and that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the jeep that led to the death of Amrik Singh.

(3). The claimants submitted that the deceased Amrik Singh alias Sohan Singh was about 30 years of age; that he was working with one Metalco Company at Dubai getting monthly salary of 1,000 Dirhams apart from perks; that he was earning equivalent to about Rs.3,500/- per month; and that the deceased was sending about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per annum to his family residing at Chak 20BB (III), Tehsil Padampur. In the claim application, the claimants arrayed non-applicant No.1 Jagdish Lal as the registered owner, non-applicant No.2 Jagdeep Singh as the transferee owner, non-applicant No.3 Kewal Kumar as the driver, and non-applicant No.7 National Insurance Company Limited as the insurer of the jeep involved in accident bearing registration number RRK 233. The claimants also joined non-applicant No.4 Hansraj as the registered owner, non-applicant No.5 Gopi Ram as the driver, and non-applicant No.6 New India Assurance Company Limited as the insurer of the tractor involved in accident bearing registration No. RRK 6169 and stated liability of all the non-applicants towards compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses at Rs.12,50,000/-. It may be pointed out that there had been addition of parties in the claim case whereby non- applicant No.1A Sadhu Singh was impleaded as another transferee owner of the jeep whereas non-applicants Nos.5A and 5B Rameshwar Lal and Meera Devi were impleaded as the owners of the tractor involved in accident.

(4). In reply to the claim application, the non-applicant No.1 Jagdish Lal while stating general denial of the claim averments maintained that the mother of the deceased was available and she was a necessary party to the claim application; that he had sold the jeep RRK 233 to Sadhu Singh on 21.01.1986 for Rs.23,500/- and handed over possession of the vehicle and, therefore, the said transferee was the true owner of the vehicle; and that he (the non-applicant No.1) had no relation with the jeep and the jeep driver was not in his employment. As noticed above, Sadhu Singh, the alleged transferee from the non-applicant No.1 was added as non-applicant No.1A. However, the said non-applicant Sadhu Singh chose not to appear and was proceed ex parte on 28.08.1990.

(5). The non-applicant No.2 Jagdeep Singh, while stating general denial of the claim averments, admitted his being the owner of the jeep but asserted that the accident occurred for the tractor driver plying with over loaded trolley and without valid licence. The non-applicant No.3 Kewal Kumar admitted his being the driver of the jeep and Jagdeep Singh being its owner but again asse



































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top