INDERPREET KAUR Vs. BHAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Kaur who was working as a Pharmacist in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, died in a motor vehicle accident near Sewa Singh Thikriwala Chowk, the Mall, Patiala on 20.6.1990 at 10.15 a.m. She was going on a Moped bearing registration No. PCP 1341 from Rajindra Hospital towards Fountain Chowk. The moped was owned and driven by Rajinder Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh. It was hit by four wheeler bearing registration No. PB-11A 7615 driven by Inderjit Singh rashly and negligently. Claimants are the minor son and a minor daughter besides her husband. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of Surinder Kaur.

(2.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, came to the conclusion that Inderjit Singh was driving the offending vehicle on 20.6.1990 at 10.15 a.m. in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal after considering the matter granted a sum of Rs. 1,75,560/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the claimants.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that the deceased was working as a Pharmacist in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, at the time of her death. AW1 Rajinder Kaur did not mention the age of the deceased. AW2 admitted that the age of the deceased had not been given in the record produced by him. However, in the post-mortem report the Doctor gave the age of the deceased as 36 years. In the claim petition also the age of the deceased was mentioned as 36 years. No other record was produced namely the Matriculation certificate or the service record to show as to what was the age of the deceased at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal after going through the statement of Raghbir Singh AW3 and keeping in view the ages of the children of the deceased came to the conclusion that at the time of her marriage she must be 28 years of age and thus was about 48/50 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal after taking her age to be 48/50 years applied a multiplier of 11 and granted compensation. The documents now placed on record in the form of Matriculation certificate and the service record of the deceased, which documents have not been controverted by the respondents clearly go to show that the deceased Surinder Kaur was born on 13.7.1952 and was working as a Pharmacist in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and this is also the date of birth recorded in the service record. According to the date of birth recorded in these documents, which have been placed on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2, the age of the deceased at the time of accident comes to 38 years. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem recorded the age of the deceased as 36 years, which date is in consonance with the date in the service record of the deceased. There is no other material on record to come to a conclusion that the deceased was aged 48/50 years at the time of her death. The learned Tribunal, as already noticed, only came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 48/50 years by taking the circumstances into consideration and did not come to this conclusion on the basis of any documentary evidence. I placing reliance on the Matriculation certificate and the service record of the deceased hold that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 38 years and not 48/50 years as concluded by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal to that extent is reversed.