ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KALA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of the connected FAOs (Nos. 1659 and 1660 of 2006) as all the three appeals arise out of an award dated 23.12.2005 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Ambala. The accident in question involves three deaths. In Claim Case No. 129-MACT of 2004 (Smt. Kala Verma and others v. Hem Raj and others) against a claim of Rs. 30,00,000/-, the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 10,25,000/-. In second claim case bearing No. 130-MACT of 2004 (Smt. Kala Verma and others v. Hem Raj and others), against a claim of the same amount of Rs. 30,00.000/-, Rs. 16,25,000/- has been awarded. In the third claim case bearing No. 147-MACT of 2004 (Naresh Kumari and others v. Hem Raj and others) against a claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, an award of Rs. 14,12,000/- has been passed. In all the three cases, the Insurance has preferred appeals mainly on the quantum of sentence.

(2.) AS per appellants' case, on 1.8.2002. Vikas Verma, his father Dharam Pal Verma and one Surinder Mohan Gupta were travelling in a Maruti Car (No. HR-01-D-6716) from Ambala to Delhi. Surinder Mohan Gupta was driving the car at a moderate speed on the left hand side of the road. At about 7 o'clock they reached near the village Shamgarh situated at a distance of two kilometers towards Karnal on Ambala-Delhi G.T. Road. At that time, the offending vehicle being a truck (registration No. JK-02-A-9138) allegedly driven rashly and negligently emerged from behind. The truck overtook their car and suddenly came on the left side on its front. The driver applied the brakes abruptly without slowing down the speed and without giving a signal or indication. As a result, the car struck against the rear portion of the truck. It virtually went under the body of the truck resulting in multiple injuries to the occupants who succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. The accident was witnessed by Rameshwar Singh and Ram Singh, who were just behind the car of the deceased. Accordingly, the aforesaid three petitions were filed. In claim petition No. 129-MACT of 2004, the claimants are the mother, sisters, grand parents and legal heirs of the deceased Vikas Verma. Deceased Vikas Verma was employed as a Research Engineer and was earning a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He was aged 21 years old on the date of accident. The claimants urged to be fully dependent on the deceased. Similarly in claim petition No. 130-MACT of 2004, the claimants are the widow, parents and legal heirs of deceased-Dharam Pal Verma. At the time of death alleged Dharam Pal Verma was employed as a Sub Divisional Officer and was earning a salary of Rs. 15,548/- per month. He was aged about 47 years. His post-mortem was conducted at Civil Hospital, Karnal. The claimants again submitted to be fully dependent upon the deceased. In the claim petition No. 147 the claimants are the widow, the minor son, the parents and the legal heirs of deceased Surinder Mohan Gupta, who was driving the vehicle. The deceased was employed as a Junior Engineer and was earning a salary of Rs. 13,039/- per month. He was 46 years old on the date of accident. His claimants have also pleaded full dependency on him. The offending truck was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company (Oriental Insurance Company Limited) Ambala Cantt. In its separate written statement before the Tribunal the appellant-Company has denied all the averments of the claim petition. Moreover, the same Insurance Company was also the insurer of the damaged car. In its written statement, the Company has pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. Prosecution witness Ram Singh (PW-10) deposed that on the date of accident he was going from his village to Panipat via Shahabad in the car of his friend Rameshwar. A car bearing No. HR-01D-6716 was going ahead of his car. In the meantime, the offending vehicle bearing truck No. JK-02-A-9138 emerged from behind and overtook their car as well as the car of the deceased going ahead. After crossing both the cars the offending vehicle all of a sudden came on the left side of the road and applied its brake abruptly without giving any signal or indicator to slow down its speed so as to give an opportunity to the deceased car driver to avoid the accident. This witness has fully supported the claimants' case. The car went under the truck from its back side. All the three persons in the car succumbed to the injuries on the sport. The driver of the offending vehicle ran away. 3-4 (three-four) persons reached there and asked them to inform the police about the accident at Karnal. Accordingly, they approached the Karnal Police. There was a delay of one hour in the recording of the FIR as at the Police Station, MHC was not available. However, during the recording of the complaint when the MHC came to know that the accident had taken place near Taraori, he directed the witness to go to Police Station Taraori. Thus they came back to Taraori. On their way to Taraori they passed through the spot of accident and noticed the presence of police. After 2-3 days the police identified the truck driver and proceeded with the investigation. During the trial before the tribunal, the respondents did not lead any defence evidence to counter the claimants' evidence. The Tribunal has carefully appreciated the entire evidence and has come to the conclusion that though the author of the FIR is one Anil Kumar but PW-10 is an eye-witness of the accident. Moreover, Anil Kumar has also stated in the FIR that the cause of accident was the sudden application of the brake by the truck driver in the middle of the road. Hence the statement of eye-witness Ram Singh PW-10 was found to be duly corroborated by the FIR. The witness has been found to inspire the confidence of the Tribunal. The testimony of the eye-witness that the truck driver disappeared from the spot of accident has also not been countered by any defence evidence. Even the truck driver has not entered the witness box to depose about the manner in which the accident took place although his truck has been found to be the offending vehicle. Thus the Tribunal has rightly applied the maxim res ipsa loquitur as the offending truck was found stationary in the middle of the said national highway. There was no occasion for the driver to have stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road. Further, there is no explanation for the rash and negligent driving either. The driver of the vehicle Hem Raj was also put up for a criminal trial which further strengthens the claimants' case. PW-10 is supported by the official witnesses. Pardeep Kumar PW-3 Additional Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. J.S. Sidhu, JMIC, Karnal has stated that the driver of the vehicle was charged and tried upon for offence under Sections 279, 283 and 304-A IPC in case FIR No. 160 dated 1.8.2002 (Ex. P-1). He has further testified that the offending vehicle was released on sapurdari in favour of the owner Ajay Gupta-respondent No. 2. The driving licence of driver Hem Raj which was seized was also on the records of criminal case. So is the case with the driving licence of deceased Surinder Mohan Gupta, driver of the car. Head Constable Ram Kishan, PW-8, Police Station Taraori (Karnal) has deposed that the FIR No. 160 dated 1.8.2002 was recorded against the accused Hem Raj at the Police Station. The case was pending in the Court of JMIC, Karnal. The claimants' evidence as led before the Tribunal has remained unrebutted. Hence, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence, the Tribunal has found that the driver of the offending vehicle Hem Raj alone was responsible for causing the accident, leading to three deaths. The earning of deceased Dharam Pal has been proved by Rita Gupta PW-1 in her evidence. She has also proved his salary certificate Ex. P-1. Apart from drawing a salary of Rs. 15,548/- (basic salary Rs. 9,925/- per month), he was also getting Rs. 535/- towards house rent. He was paying the income tax of Rs. 200/- per month and was contributing Rs. 3,000/- towards GPF. Kala Verma PW-2, wife of deceased Dharam Pal has proved the death of her husband and the son, Vikas Verma. According to her, her husband was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. He was employed as Xen, Panchayati Raj, Ambala, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. He left behind, two daughters, mother, father and widow (PW-2). They all were dependent upon his earnings. She has also stated that she had spent about Rs. 50,000/- on the cremation of her husband and son. Another deceased Vikas Verma was her only son. He was of 21 years at the time of accident and was employed as a Research Engineer. He had been selected in a Government concern and was to get a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He was unmarried. Her daughters Shailja and Geetanjli are studying in B.A. Final and B.A. Part II, respectively. Her father-in-law Ram Saran Verma was employed as Gram Sewak (retired). He was getting a pension of Rs. 3,000/- per month. She has stated that her son Vikas Verma had obtained the Engineering Degree from Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra in Computer. The evidence of this witness does not suffer from any rebuttal and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have disbelieved it. The post-mortem report indicated accidental deaths. The tribunal after going through Ex. P-1, Birth Certificate and other documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that deceased Dharam Pal was aged about 47 years on the date of accident. The Tribunal has believed in the salary certificate of the deceased being Rs. 15,548/-. After deducting 1/3rd income as expenses on one-self, the dependency has been calculated and worked out to Rs. 10,366/- per month (Rs. 1,24,392/- per annum). The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 as mentioned in Schedule II under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the total compensation on calculating the dependency has been worked out to Rs. 16,17,096/- has been rounded to Rs. 16,17,000/-. Further looking to the background of the deceased and the claimants, the tribunal has given a reasonable amount of Rs. 7,000/- towards the last rites, transportation and consortium. Hence the total amount has been calculated to Rs. 16,24,000/-. In the second case i.e. death of Vikas Verma it has been proved by evidence of Leslie K. David PW-9 Assistant Executive (Administration), C-Dot, Center for Development of Telematics (Telecom Technology Centre of Government of India), New Delhi, that he had been selected as a Research Engineer on 1.8.2001 in the pay scale of Rs. 8,500/-. He had given his acceptance to the offer of appointment which was exhibited as Ex. P-37. As per certificate, he was to earn a salary of Rs. 19,656/- per month. In this case also, the evidence of claimants has remained unrebutted. The date of birth of Vikas Verma has been found to be 28.1.1981 as per bio-data attached with the acceptance of the offer of appointment. Hence his age was fixed as 21 years on the date of accident. The Tribunal has held that the claimants included his widow mother, unmarried sisters and grand parents. The Tribunal has held that since the deceased was unmarried, he must be helping his parents in running the house- holds. The deceased would have married in due course, however, at the time of accident, claimants have been found to be dependent upon him. Moreover, the earning of Dharam Pal father of deceased Vikas Verma has also been taken into consideration while assessing the extent of dependency in this case. That is why, only 1/3rd of the earnings of deceased Vikas Verma has been taken into account for assessing the dependency which was calculated to be Rs. 6,552/- per month (Rs. 78,624/- per annum). The Tribunal has taken a balanced view in applying the multiplier of 13 only in a case of young death while noticing the factors like the marital status of the deceased and the dependency of claimants also on Dharam Pal as discussed earlier. Normally for his age group, a suitable multiplier to be adopted as given in Schedule II would be 17. So to the compensation amount which would come to Rs. 10,22,000/-, a further amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards the funeral and transportation expenses has been added. Thus, the total compensation has been worked to Rs. 10,25,000/-.

(3.) THUS , learned Tribunal has carefully assessed the compensation amounts in all the three cases. In case of Dharam Pal Verma, he was an Executive Engineer, a Class One Officer, and his entire family was dependent upon him, except his deceased son Vikas Verma, who died quite young at the age of 21 only in the same accident. Vikas Verma was also a qualified Engineer. He was to be employed as a Research Engineer and had been offered an important job in a Government of India Undertaking. Looking to his academic profile, he had a promising future. The loss suffered on account of deaths of Dharam Pal and his son Vikas, both, by the claimants appears to be irreparable and beyond any compensation. The Tribunal has only awarded just and reasonable amounts of compensation. Deceased Dharam Pal Verma was aged about 47 years. He was holding the post of Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj, and would have earned further promotions in future. Besides his widow, he had two years unmarried daughters wholly dependent upon him. In the third case also, the deceased was the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. He was aged 46 years and was employed as a Junior Engineer. Determination of earnings in all the three cases cannot be faulted in the wake of enough documentary evidences duly proved by the official witnesses. As such, the assessment of dependency by applying the multiplier of 13 in all the three cases appears to be in line with the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court on that point. In the case of State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 140 : 2003(7) SCC 484 it has been held that the compensation should be just and reasonable, i.e., proportionate to the damages in the real sense. It should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit, nor a pittance. The word 'just' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness. In all the three cases, by any standard, the compensation amounts do not look like bonanzas. Rather, they only appear to be equitable, fair and reasonable. In another case reported as Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and others, 2006(1) RCR(Civil) 85 : 2005(8) SCC 473, Hon'ble the Apex Court has reiterated that the Court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. In the instant cases the Tribunal has taken a moderate view in applying the multiplier of 13 in assessing the compensation, in all the three matters. Thus, we do not find any merit in all the three FAOs (being FAO Nos. 1658 of 2006, 1659 of 2006 and 1660 of 2006), hence, the same are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed.