Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.S.Tewatia, J.
Sood And Company, Kulu
Versus
Surjit Kaur
F.A.O. No. 69 of 1970,
Decided On : MAY 30, 1973
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A, 110-B - FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT - SECTION 1-A, 2 - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - CALCULATION - DEPENDENCY OF CLAIMANTS - DEDUCTIONS - LUMP SUM PAYMENT - UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE - GRATUITY AND PROVIDENT FUND.
Fact of the Case:
Gurpal Singh was run over by a petrol tanker driven by Lachhman Singh, resulting in his death. His wife and children filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, while his parents filed a separate claim petition. The Tribunal held Lachhman Singh liable for the accident and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Lachhman Singh. It rejected the insurance company's contention that the accident did not occur on a public road. The court also held that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act envisage a norm of liability different from the one provided by the provisions of sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act? 2. Whether the legal representatives claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can lay claim to compensation which, strictly speaking, is available to the estate of the deceased to which they become entitled only as its inheritors? 3. Whether the amount of gratuity and provident fund received by the claimants after the death of the deceased should be deducted from the amount of compensation? 4. Whether a deduction should be made from the amount of compensation on account of lump sum payment and for uncertainty of life?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of sections 110-A to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act provide only the machinery and procedure for realizing compensation for injuries or death resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and do not provide any new basis for the limit of the liability of the respondents. The basis for the liability continues to be the one envisaged by the Fatal Accidents Act. 2. The claimants claiming compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are entitled to be compensated both with regard to the future pecuniary benefits that the death of the deceased deprived them of, as also the compensation available to the estate of deceased on account of the span of life of the deceased being cut short as a result of the accident. 3. The amount of gratuity and provident fund received by the claimants after the death of the deceased should not be deducted from the amount of compensation, as these assets were being created by the deceased out of his savings to be utilized for the benefit of the members of the family on various occasions like marriage, higher education of the children, etc. 4. No deduction should be made from the amount of compensation on account of lump sum payment and for uncertainty of life, as the claimants have already been deprived of the compensation due to them for nearly six years, and no interest for that period has been allowed. The needs of the appellants will also increase with the advancement of age, which fact has not been taken into consideration while determining the just compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, upholding the Tribunal's award of compensation to the claimants.
D.S.Tewatia, J.
1. Gurpal Singh deceased was runover on a public road at 4.45 p.m. on 11.3.1967 by a petrol tanker No. PNN-830 driven by Lachhman Singh and he died instantaneously on the spot.
2. The wife of the deceased on her own behalf, as also on behalf of her two minor sons and one daughter from the loins of the deceased, through Claim Petition No. 88/Addl. of 1968, claimed Rs. 75,000/- from Sood and Company (respondent No. 1) the owners of the tanker; Lachhman Singh (respondent No. 2), driver of the offending vehicle; and Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 3) with which the said tanker was insured, on account of the death of the deceased caused by Lachhman Singh driver by his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
3. The parents of Gurpal Singh deceased through a separate claim petition (Claim Petition No. 19/Addl. of 1968) claimed Rs. 30,0.0/- from the above said respondents on the basis of the same cause of action.
4. The deceased was claimed to be 35 years old and drawing a salary of Rs. 264/- p. m. as mechanic in the Railways.
5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 resisted the claims, inter-alia, on the ground that the accident in which the deceased lost his life occurred as a result of his own negligence in that despite warning given by the driver by blowing the horn the deceased tried to cross the road behind the vehicle and while so doing slipped on the gravel lying on the road and came under the wheels and died.
6. The Tribunal consolidated both the petitions and the evidence, which was common, was received only in one petition and it disposed both of them by one order
7. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of Lachhman Singh respondent No. 2 (the driver of the offending vehicle). The plea regarding limitation was not pressed and the contention on behalf of the insurance Company, respondent No. 3, that insurance policy did not cover the vehicle as the accident did not take place on a public road was negatived. The Tribunal assessed Rs, 80,000/- as the compensation amount which it apportioned amongst the claimants as follows : Rs. 7,500/- for father; Rs. 7,500/- for mother; Rs. 16,750/- for each claimant in the other petition i.e. the widow and her three children. The over-all liability of the insurance. Company, i.e. respondent No. 3 was fixed at Rs. 20,000/-. For the balance, the remaining respondents were made jointly and severally liable.
8. Respondent No. 1, i. e. the owner of the offending vehicle, has challenged the said award in this Court, by two separate appeals (F. A. Os 69 and 70 of 1970) which will be disposed of by this judgment.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-Company primarily addressed the Court regarding the quantum of compensation awarded and the principle that has been observed in determining the same, but at the same time he did challenge, though faintly, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the issue of negligence as well. He urged that from the perusal of the order of Tribunal it appears that it wrongly placed the onus on the respondents to establish that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving by Lachhman Singh, respondent No. 2.
10. I am afraid I do not find myself in agreement with the interpretation that the learned counsel has sought to put on the award. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence of the witnesses, adduced by the claimants, who furnished the ocular version of the occurrence. One of them, i.e. Hem Raj had lodged the F. I. R. with the Police. The Tribunal found their testimony as wholly reliable and accordingly placed reliance thereon.
11. The respondents examined six witnesses. RW 5 and RW 6 did not support the respondents regarding the sequence of the accident. The testimony of other witnesses was disbelieved and discarded on the ground of their being employees of respondent No. 1 and thus interested. In addition to that, their testimony stood materiall
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
