Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita Rani And Ors vs Kapil And Ors on 23 September, 2022
FAO-1246-2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
473 FAO-1246-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.09.2022
Anita Rani and others ---Appellants
versus
Kapil @ Bindu @ Pintu @ Shanti and others ---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Hardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate for
Mr.Rajesh K.Sheoran, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellants through instant appeal are seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated
11.11.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for
short 'Tribunal') whereby Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs. 4,60,600/- along with interest @ 7½ % per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition.
2. The facts emerging from record and necessary for the
adjudication of present appeal are that on 30.01.2014 Ramesh Lal
along with his son Ravi Kumar boarded a bus bearing registration
1 of 5
FAO-1246-2015 (O&M) -2-
No. HR-57-3096. Due to overcrowd, Ramesh Lal (deceased) and his
son Ravi Kumar could not get seat and they stood at foot steps of
gate of the bus. The driver suddenly applied brake and Ramesh Lal
fell down from the bus. He was crushed by rear wheel of the said
bus. He was shifted to General Hospital, Sirsa where he was
declared dead. The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of
death of Ramesh Lal. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.2014
determined amount of compensation Rs. 4,60,600/-, however,
holding deceased partially responsible for accident, awarded 50% of
the compensation to the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
Tribunal has wrongly fastened partial responsibility upon deceased.
There was no reason to hold that there is contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased. He further submitted that amount of
compensation needs to be re-determined in the light of judgement of
a five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680 and a
three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 2009 (6) SCC 121. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that accident took place on 30.01.2014 and at that point of
time, minimum wages of unskilled labourer was Rs.5550/- whereas
the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased Rs.5,000/-
4. Learned counsel for insurer supporting findings of the
2 of 5
FAO-1246-2015 (O&M) -3-
Tribunal contended that deceased was standing on doorsteps of bus,
thus, there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased and
drive of bus cannot be held exclusively responsible for the accident.
He conceded that total amount of compensation may be re-
determined in view of afore-cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court. He further does not dispute that minimum wages as
prescribed by State Government during January 2014 was Rs.5500/-.
5. I have perused the record and heard arguments of both
sides.
6. On being asked, learned counsel for appellants pointed
out that during the course of proceedings before learned trial Court,
son of deceased who was accompanying him has deposed that bus
was overcrowded. Learned counsel for Insurer could not controvert
this fact.
7. It is well known fact that buses either private or State
controlled transport undertakings are normally overcrowded. People
are forced to stand alley as well footsteps. The deceased was 55
years old, thus, there was no question for such an aged person to
stand at foot steps had there been seats available to occupy. It is
very tough to travel while standing in alley or on foot steps, however,
inspite of expiry of a quite long time from independence, people are
forced to travel in overcrowded buses and trains. On the one hand,
transporter is unable to provide seat to sit inspite of charging fare as
good as a commuter occupying seat still in case of accident, it is
pleaded that commuters are responsible for standing at foot steps.
3 of 5
FAO-1246-2015 (O&M) -4-
8. In such circumstances, I find that the Tribunal ignoring the
ground realities has held that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased. I am of the considered opinion that
deceased by no stretch of imagination can be held negligent. The
entire liability was of driver/owner of the vehicle. It would be totally
unfair to hold that there was contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased. Thus, the appellants are entitled to full amount of
compensation.
9. Both the parties conceded that amount of compensation
needs to be re-determined as per judgements of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Smt. Sarla Verma's
case (supra). The minimum wages during January 2014 was
Rs.5500/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is re-
assessed Rs.5500/- per month. Accordingly, the amount of
compensation is re-determined as below:-
Particulars Amount of compensation
(in Rs.)
Annual income of the
deceased 66000
Future prospects 10.00%
Income after addition of future
prospects 72600
Deduction on account of 1/4th
personal expenses
Assessed income 54450
Multiplier (11) 5,98,950
Loss of estate 15000
Loss of consortium 2,00,000
Funeral expenses 15000
Total 8,28,950
4 of 5
FAO-1246-2015 (O&M) -5-
10. The appellants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% on
enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date
of actual payment. It is made clear that amount already paid would
be deducted from claim determined hereinabove.
11. The respondents are directed to make payment within a
period of eight weeks from today.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the above-stated terms.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
23.09.2022
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
