Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J
Surjit Kaur — Appellant
Versus
Gurmail Singh And Another — Respondent
First Appeal from Order No. 83 of 1971
Decided on : 14-01-1974
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : L.M. Suri,
For the Respondent:J.S. Wasu, Advocate-General (Punjab) with Mr. S.K. Sayal, adv
A daughter is entitled to compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, as a 'child' of the deceased.
Headnote:
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT, 1855 - SECTIONS 1-A, 2 - CHILD - INTERPRETATION - DAUGHTER ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION - DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
Fact of the Case:
Milkha Singh was sleeping in front of his house when a military truck driven by Gurmail Singh struck against two kikar trees and then ran over him, causing his death. Surjit Kaur, Milkha Singh's daughter, filed a claim petition for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, alleging that the accident was due to Gurmail Singh's negligent driving. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that Milkha Singh was guilty of negligence and that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck without authority. Surjit Kaur appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck with the permission and authority of the Union of India, that Surjit Kaur was entitled to compensation as a 'child' within the meaning of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, and that Milkha Singh was not guilty of negligence. The Court awarded Surjit Kaur Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, including Rs. 7,800/- for loss of financial support and Rs. 2,200/- for loss of love and affection.
Issues: 1. Whether Gurmail Singh was driving the truck with the permission and authority of the Union of India? 2. Whether Surjit Kaur was entitled to compensation as a 'child' within the meaning of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act? 3. Whether Milkha Singh was guilty of negligence? 4. What amount of compensation was Surjit Kaur entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck with the permission and authority of the Union of India based on the statements of witnesses and the absence of evidence to the contrary from the Union of India. 2. The Court held that Surjit Kaur was entitled to compensation as a 'child' within the meaning of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, interpreting the term 'child' broadly to include both sons and daughters of the deceased. 3. The Court held that Milkha Singh was not guilty of negligence, finding that he was sleeping in front of his house and that there was no evidence to suggest that he was in a position to foresee the accident. 4. The Court awarded Surjit Kaur Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, including Rs. 7,800/- for loss of financial support and Rs. 2,200/- for loss of love and affection, based on the deceased's estimated income and the principles established in previous case law.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment of the Tribunal, and awarded Surjit Kaur Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
This appeal has been filed by Surjit Kaur appellant against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal. Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) dated December 10, 1970 by which her claim petition had been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the present case are that Milkha Singh was sleeping on a cot in front of his house in village Pul Sudhar on the night intervening May 30 and 31, 1969 at a distance of about 40 feet from metalled portion of the road Gurmail Singh respondent, who was driving military truck No. TP 1302 at about 1.00 A.M., after striking against two kikar trees struck against the cot of Milkha Singh and over ran him. He was crushed to death at the spot. Gurmail Singh, driver, who had been stuck up in the steering wheel of the truck was removed therefrom. He was smelling of liquor at that time. His two companions who were in the truck had become unconscious. Gurmail Singh respondent was (sic) and was convicted by a criminal court. The petitioner is the daughter of Milka Singh deceased and had filed a claim petition for compensation on the ground that the accident took place on account of negligent and rash driving of Gurmail Singh who was driving the truck in the course of his employment under the Union of India. The claim had been contested by the Union of India who, Inter alia pleaded that Milkha Singh deceased himself was negligent as by was sleeping as a distance of about 20 feet from the metalled portion of the load, that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck without its authority and permission, and that Surjit Kaur was not dependent on Milkha Singh deceased. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :--
(i) Whether the accident, resulting into the death of Milkha Singh, was due to driving of the truck negligently or rashly by Gurmail Singh ?
(2) Whether Surjit Kaur was dependent on Milkha Singh deceased at the time of the accident ?
(3) Whether Milkha Singh was guilty of negligence by sleeping at a distance of (sic) from the main road. If so, what is its effect ?
(4) Whether Gurmail Singh did not drive the truck at the time of accident within the authority and permission of respondent No. 2, if so, what is its effect ?
(5) To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled, and from whom ?
The Tribunal held that Milkha Singh had died on account of rash and negligent driving of Gurmail Singh respondent, that Surjit Kaur was rot dependent on Milkha Singh, that Milkha Singh was not guilty of any negligence in sleeping at a place in front of his house, that Gurmail Singh was driving the truck at the time of accident without the authority and permission of the Union of India and that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. Consequently, it dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner having felt aggrieved against the judgment of the Tribunal has come up in appeal to this Court.
3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Gurmail Singh respondent was driving the truck while on duty and the hiding of the learned Tribunal that he was driving the same without any authority and permission of Union of India is erroneous. He referred to the statement of the witnesses in support of his contention. P.W. 3 Shri D.N. Mehta had deposed that Gurmail Singh respondent was detailed as driver on the truck on May 30, 1969. R.W. 1 Gurmail Singh driver deposed that he was driving the truck on the night of occurrence under the orders of his superiors. R.W. 2 Shri Ram Sarup Superintendent deposed that he knew Gurmail Singh respondent who was a driver on truck at Halwara. Military truck NO. TP-3302 was at Halwara in the months of March and May, 1969. On May 30, 1969 at 11 00 A.M. he detailed the aforesaid truck for carrying and delivering a pumping set at M.E.S. Office. Ludhiana, Gurmail Singh respondent was detailed as driver on that truck. He was a permanent driver on the aforesaid truck. He further deposed that
