Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
SANTOSH RANI AND OTHERS - Appellants
Vs.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA POLICE CORP. AND OTHERS - Respondents
F.A.O. No. 2375 of 1994
Decided On : 12-03-2013
For the Appellant : Sudhir Mittal.
For the Respondent: D.R. Bansal and Mr. R.C. Kapoor.
The main legal point established is the application of the principles from Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for calculating loss of dependency, future prospects, and conventional heads in motor accident cases.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident - Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 - Loss of dependency, future prospects, and conventional heads
Fact of the Case:
The appeal involves a motor accident where the deceased Raj Kumar sustained fatal injuries and the claimants sought compensation for his death. The respondents contested the claim, attributing negligence to the deceased and disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found 1/3rd negligence on the part of the scooterist and 2/3rd negligence on the part of the van driver. It also held that the income of the deceased should be calculated with consideration of future prospects and conventional heads.
Issues: The main issues were the attribution of negligence, calculation of loss of dependency, and the application of the multiplier for future prospects and conventional heads.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, regarding the calculation of loss of dependency, future prospects, and conventional heads in motor accident cases.
Final Decision: The court modified the quantum of compensation, applying a multiplier of 13' for loss of dependency, adding 30% of the income towards future prospects, and awarding compensation under conventional heads, resulting in an enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,64,400 with interest at the rate of 7.5%.
M. Jeyapaul, J.
The widow and four children of deceased Raj Kumar have preferred the present appeal challenging part of negligence attributed to the deceased Raj Kumar and also the quantum of compensation. The claimants have contended that on 21.10.1991, when Raj Kumar (since deceased) was coming from Barara on the scooter of Pawan Kumar to his village Dulliana after filling petrol in the scooter of Pawan Kumar, the van bearing registration No. HR 03-2804 owned by respondent No.1 came from Jagadhari side driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of Pawan Kumar from behind and as a result of which the pillion rider Raj Kumar sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the same in the Civil Hospital, Mullana. The claimants sought compensation for the death of Raj Kumar in the motor accident.
2. Respondents filed written statement attributing negligence to the scooterist who came on the main road at a very high speed from the petrol pump without minding the traffic on the main road. It was contended that the driver of the van was not rash or negligent at the time when the accident took place.
3. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 52,000 per annum. A sum of Rs. 12,000 was deducted therefrom for the personal expenses of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of 11' the Tribunal arrived at a compensation of Rs. 4,40,000. But having held that there was some negligence on the part of the scooterist who drove the scooter taking Raj Kumar as the pillion rider, 1/3rd of the compensation was deducted and the insurance company was directed to pay 2/3rd of the compensation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that the multiplier of 13' should have been applied to calculate the loss of dependency of the deceased who was 46 years old at the time of accident as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Contending that there was no negligence on the part of the scooterist as per the evidence of PW 2, the eyewitness to the occurrence, he would submit that the Tribunal should not have deducted 1/3rd of the compensation towards part of the negligence on the side of the scooterist. He would submit that the annual income of the deceased was arrived at without properly adverting to the documents produced to show the exact income of the deceased. It is his further contention that the Tribunal had not granted any compensation towards conventional heads.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would vehemently submit that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation based on the materials available on record. He would submit that as per law, the multiplier of 11' was applied and no addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was made by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is his submission that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. The evidence of PW 2, Krishan Lal, who proceeded along with the deceased has categorically admitted that the moment the scooter reached the main road after filling petrol in the petrol pump, the accident took place. The driver of the vehicle who emerged from the petrol pump to reach the main road should have carefully watched the vehicles proceeding on the road. Had the scooterist taken care to give right of way to the motorist who was coming on the main road crossing the petrol pump, the accident would not have taken place. The motorist who was proceeding on the main road had a right of way. The scooterist who came from the side of the petrol pump should have taken care while reaching the main road in order to avoid hitting the motor vehicle proceeding on the main road. But the motor vehicle which was proceeding on the main road should also have proceeded slowly near the petrol pump, as it is always expected that the vehicles after filling petrol would come down to the main road to proceed furt
