Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 2524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal
FAO No.3938 of 2016 (O&M)
Pinki & Ors
v.
Jaskaran Singh & Ors
{Decided on 31/07/2018}
Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-4158-2016).
Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2 (in FAO-3938-2016).
for respondents No.5 and 6 (in CR-4158-2016).
Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3 (in FAO-4158-2016).
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.3 (in FAO-3938-2016).
Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate, for
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in both cases).
Accident – Negligence – Merely because on a two-wheeler three persons were travelling, inference cannot be drawn that against the driver of the two-wheeler that he was also contributory negligent in absence of evidence in that regard
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 – Accident – Negligence – Merely because on a two-wheeler three persons were travelling, inference cannot be drawn that against the driver of the two-wheeler that he was also contributory negligent in absence of evidence in that regard (Para 7)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 – Accident – Apportionment of Compensation – Mother was entitled to lesser compensation as compared to two minor girls who had lost their father and had entire life ahead of them. (Para 11)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 – Accident – Just Compensation – Deceased was aged 33 years working as permanent employee in a PSU – Deceased was earning Rs.34,000/- per month – Compensation as awarded by MACT enhanced by approx Rs.11 lakhs and total compensation of Rs. 69.65 lakhs awarded.
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Vide this judgment, I shall be disposing of two appeals bearing FAO No.3938 of 2016 and FAO No.4158 of 2016 as both have arisen out of one claim petition.
2. Deep Singh who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident on 28.09.2014 was aged about 33 years. His young widow, two minor daughters and widowed mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The respondents denied the accident. In alternative, it was pleaded that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that the accident has taken place, it had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
3. Deceased-Deep Singh was travelling on a motor-cycle along with two others when the offending vehicle i.e. a motor car hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling from the opposite side resulting into his death. Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal after recording a finding that the offending vehicle i.e. motor car was being driven in rash and negligent manner, assessed the compensation payable at Rs.58,66,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the insurance company in FAO No.4158 of 2016 has submitted as under:-
5. Identity of the driver is not established as originally the name of driver was given as Balkaran Singh which was later on corrected as Jaskaran Singh. Hence, he submitted that there is possibility of false implications. In the present case, Ashok Kumar, who was travelling on the ill-fated vehicle, has initially informed the Police and inadvertently given name of the driver as Balkaran Singh whereas it was Jaskaran Singh. Ashok Kumar has appeared in the Court as CW-2 and another Laxmi Narain, injured who was also travelling on the same ill-fated vehicle has been examined as CW-3. It is further not in dispute that Police also after investigation have concluded that it was Jaskaran Singh who was driving the offending vehicle.
6. In view of the aforesaid evidence, this Court does not find that finding of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on this aspect are erroneous.
7. Next argument of learned counsel for insurance company is that three persons were travelling on a motor-cycle which met with an accident and therefore, the Tribunal shall have made the deceased contributory negligent. It may be significant to note that the respondents in the claim petition have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased, who was driving the motor-cycle, had contributed to the accident. In such circumstances, merely because on a two-wheeler three persons were travelling, inference cannot be drawn that against the driver of the two-wheeler that he was also contributory negligent in absence of evidence available on the file.
8. Next submission of learned counsel is to the effect that the accident took place head on as both the vehicles were coming from the opposite sides and therefore, the deceased was contributory negligent. This Court does not find any force even in this submission of learned counsel because it is the positive case of the claimants that the offending vehicle i.e. car came at a very fast speed and in a zig-zag manner and caused the accident when the car was brought on the wrong side of the road. The respondents including the Insurance company has not produced any evidence to prove that the car was not brought to the wrong side resulting in accident. Hence, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further argued that while assessing the compensation, a deduction of 1/4th should have been applied as number of dependents are four. He has further submitted that the income tax payable has not been deducted. He has further submitted that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18 which should be 16 keeping in view the age of the deceased. He has further submitted that on account of conventi
