INDERJIT KAUR Vs. GURDEEP SINGH @ DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 32 years. The accident had occurred when the car which the deceased was driving dashed against a stationary truck from the rear side. On 06.09.2000 at about 10 PM, the Tribunal found that the accident was the result of contributory negligence of the deceased himself and after assessing the compensation apportioned the liability between the deceased and the driver of the truck, who had parked the vehicle as 75:25 and grant a compensation on that basis.

(2.) THE appeal is filed on the basis that the apportionment as made by the Tribunal was erroneous. In this case, AW2 was one Gurdev Singh who stated that he and his friend Achharjit Singh were returning to their village Gidder Pindi and when they reached near the turning of village Patial on the G.T. Road and the insured's truck was standing in the middle of the metal road without any parking lights on. There was no bricks or any branches around the said truck signalling the stationary truck. The driver Pritpal Singh and yet another person Gurdip Singh seated by his side died at the spot whereas as Manpreet Singh who was sitting at the rear seat survived with serious injuries. They would state that soon after the collision yet another car had arrived driven by one Paramvir Singh who was the brother of Pritpal Singh died in the accident.

(3.) THE only point then would be the quantum of compensation that could be assessed. A postmortem certificate revealed that he was aged 32 years. It was in evidence that the deceased Pritpal Singh was running gas agency by name M/s Amar Gas Agency and he was earning Rs. 20,000/ - and also attending to agricultural operations to augment his income and his aggregate income would have been Rs. 50,000/ - per month. The evidence brought on record, however, showed that gas agency stood in the name of his younger brother Paramvir Singh. The brother had given a power of attorney in favour of the deceased and the copy of the power of attorney had been filed as Ex.PB. As regards the holding of agricultural lands, the claimant had filed jamabandies P/1 to P/5. The holding of the deceased was spoken to also by Harbhajan Singh AW4, who stated that he had been posted as Deputy Forest Officer and he was owning land measuring 109 kanals in village Kaluwahar and he owned some land jointly with his nephews Pritpal Singh and Paramvir Singh. His own joint holding had been sought to be proved through Ex.PE/2 and Ex.PE/4. He also stated that his wife was an IAS Officer and employed as Secretary Revenue with Punjab Government and she owned agricultural land measuring 29 kanals as set forth in Ex.PE/3. The land owned by him and his wife were, therefore, cultivated by Pritpal Singh on account of their own employment in Government service. He would state that he or his wife did not collect any charge or any lease or batai from Pritpal Singh. His wife had herself stated that her husband was having only 12 kanals of land. Even as regards the business income from gas agency, the income tax returns had been submitted only by Paramvir Singh as evidenced through Ex.P1. The Tribunal reasoned that the income tax assessment made on the brother of the deceased can be of no avail and even the power of attorney could not be relied, for it was obvious that the document had been fabricated only for the purpose of the case. I will not go as far as to state that the document was fabricated, for the power of attorney was a registered instrument having been registered on 07.01.2000 that is before the accident. It is far too unlikely that the accident could have been anticipated to create a document. I am prepared to believe that as a person assisting his brother in the same manner for running a gas agency with close relatives in government service he should have earned not less than Rs. 7500/ -. He was driving his own car and it only showed that his own economic status. I would also allow for an income to be assessed Rs. 2500/ - through agricultural operation which was surely possible of the manner in which the evidence was given by AW4. The aggregate income with whatever little evidence possible will be taken as Rs. 10,000/ - but I would not provide for any further prospect of increase. I will take the income at Rs. 10,000/ -, make a provision for 1/4th deduction and apply a multiplier of 16 suitable to the age of the deceased. The loss of dependence shall be Rs. 14,40,000/ -. I will provide additional amount of Rs. 1 lac for loss of consortium and another Rs. 1 lac for loss of love and affection for the two minor children. There shall be further amount of Rs. 5,000/ - towards loss to estate and Rs. 20,000/ - for funeral expenses. The total compensation payable shall be Rs. 16,65,000/ -. Considering the fact that the deceased himself has contributed to the accident, which has been apportioned by the Tribunal as 75% to the deceased and 25% against the owner and driver of the truck for negligently parking the truck, I will allow for compensation of 25% of the same which will come to Rs. 4,16,250/ -. The amount in excess over what has already been assessed by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount as assessed will be distributed amongst the wife and minor children in such a way that they take twice as much as each of the parents of the deceased.