GOLDY Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dtd. 5/11/2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby the compensation of Rs.4,09,000.00 along with interest at 9% per annum was granted on account of death of Jarnail Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 1/11/1999.

(2.) The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 1/11/1999 at about 9:30 p.m., Jarnail Singh and Mohinder Singh were returning from their agricultural fields to village Barhan on motorcycle No. HR-07B-2319. Jarnail Singh was driving the motorcycle while Mohinder Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. When they reached near the Royal King Factory in the area of village Niwarsi on the Kurukshetra-Ladwa Road, a truck bearing No. HR-02-7131, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Ladwa and struck the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, both the occupants of the motorcycle sustained serious injuries. Jarnail Singh died at the spot, whereas Mohinder Singh was taken for medical treatment and was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 12/11/1999. In respect of the said accident, FIR No.158 dtd. 1/11/1999 under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Ladwa. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of Jarnail Singh. A separate claim petition was also filed by the legal representatives of Mohinder Singh seeking compensation for his death arising out of the same accident.

(3.) Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident in question, which resulted in the death of Jarnail Singh, stood duly established and had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, Raj Kumar, while driving truck bearing registration No. HR-02-7131. The finding on negligence was primarily founded upon the cogent and reliable testimony of Kehar Singh (PW-3), who appeared as an eye-witness to the occurrence. The testimony of the said witness remained unshaken in cross-examination and stood duly corroborated by the contemporaneous documentary record, including FIR (Ex. P1) No.158 dtd. 1/11/1999 registered under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Ladwa, as well as the post-mortem report (Ex.P6) placed on record. In the absence of any convincing rebuttal from the respondents, the learned Tribunal held that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No.1. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimants had asserted that the deceased Jarnail Singh was engaged in agriculture and was also a partner in a commission agency firm. However, in the absence of cogent documentary evidence to establish the exact income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.3,000.00. The age of the deceased was taken as 30 years at the time of the accident. Taking into consideration that the deceased had left behind his widow, a minor son and aged parents as dependents, the learned Tribunal deducted one-third of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and assessed the annual loss of dependency accordingly. Applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs.3,84,000.00. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs.15,000.00 was awarded to the widow of the deceased towards loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.10,000.00 was granted towards funeral expenses. Consequently, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,09,000.00 in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Further, the learned Tribunal held that the liability to pay the awarded compensation would be joint and several upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. However, since it was found that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company was granted the right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle after satisfying the award in favour of the claimants.