KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. TEJ KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of appeal bearing No.459 of 2000 and the cross objection bearing No.23-CII of 2004 arising out of the same accident. The appeal bearing No.459 of 2000 is at the instance of the owner of the Tempo bearing No.PB-09-7032 challenging the liability fastened upon it and the cross objection aforementioned at the instance of the claimants for seeking enhancement of compensation for death of one Chanan Singh, who unfortunately died in a motor accident occurred on 20.03.1994. He left behind widow, five children and mother. He was stated to be engaged in agriculture and dairy farming and earning '5000/- per month.

(2.) Mr. IPS Mangat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability upon the owner and driver of the aforementioned tempo when it has specifically come on record i.e. in the claim petition and the FIR that both drivers of the vehicles i.e. tempo and bus were equally rash and negligence therefore, a contributory negligence was required to be apportioned between the tempo and bus involved in the accident. The finding of the Tribunal that the offending tempo was not insured is based on conjectures and surmises, for, on the one hand the insurance company admitted that the vehicle registered in the name of Karamjit was insured with them but on the other hand, stated that it was not the same vehicle which was involved in the accident. It cannot blow hot and cold in same breath. Moreover, the amount of compensation assessed is on higher side, thus, urges this Court for modification of the award passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Dhandi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-cross objectors submitted that the income taken by the Tribunal as Rs.1500/- per month is on lower side when there was a specific pleading that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month. It did not provide anything towards future prospects, much less, the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is on higher side keeping in view the fact that there were seven dependents at the time of accident, thus, urges this Court for enhancement of compensation.