Punjab-Haryana High Court
New Midh Bhabra Transport Co. Pvt Ltd vs Surinder Kumari And Ors on 2 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081234
FAO-333-1990 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(101)
FAO-333-1990
DATE OF DECISION : 02.07.2024
NEW MIDH BHABRA TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD. ...APPELLANT
V/S
SURINDER KUMARI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for Insurance Company - respondent No.4.
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal has been filed under Motor Vehicles Act, by the
owner of the offending vehicle, impugning judgment dated 11.05.1989,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"),
Gurdaspur, awarding compensation to the claimants - respondents No.1
and 2.
2. Brief facts may be noticed.
3. Capt. Ravinder Kumar Bhola, who was an MBBS Graduate and
working in the Army, was driving a Scooter on 12.09.1987, which was hit
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081234
FAO-333-1990 -2-
by a bus, coming from the opposite direction. He was crushed under the
wheel of the bus and died at the spot. His parents - respondents No.1 and
2, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, which after contest, has been
accepted, vide the impugned judgment and they had been awarded an
amount of Rs.1,19,400/- in equal share, with cost along with interest @
12% per annum, from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The
judgment has been impugned by the owner of the bus by way of present
appeal.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
4. Claimants have led evidence to the effect that the offending bus
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The speed of the bus
can be gauged from the fact that even after collusion, scooter driven by
the deceased, along with his body was dragged by 5-6 metres, before the
bus could be brought to the halt. Capt. S.K.Jha, PW-3, who was
following the deceased, on his scooter, was eye-witness to the accident,
and has supported the case of the claimants. His testimony has gone
unrebutted. Post-mortem of the deceased, Exhibit P-4, shows that the
death had occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident. FIR,
Exhibit A-5, also leads credence to the case of the claimants. Therefore,
no infirmity can be found in the finding recorded by the Tribunal under
Issue No.1.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081234
FAO-333-1990 -3-
5. Claimants have produced copy of the statement of Account,
Exihibit A-2, to establish that the deceased was getting a net salary of
Rs.2790/- per month, after deductions. As the deceased was unmarried, by
taking his self-dependency at 50%, the Tribunal found the claimants to be
entitled to compensation of Rs.1400/- per month. Deceased was 24 years
of age at the time of accident. Applying a multiplier of 16, although it is
on the lower side, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the
claimants at Rs.1,19,400/-, which was awarded jointly and severally
against the respondents. In terms of the Insurance Policy, Exhibit R-1, and
as laid down in Section 95 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the
liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of
Rs.50,000/-. No fault can be found with the findings recorded and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which are upheld.
6. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
02.07.2024
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
