Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parkash Kaur & Anr vs Gurmukh Singh & Ors on 22 March, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -1-
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-294-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22.03.2024
Parkash Kaur and Another ....Appellants
VERSUS
Gurmukh Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the award dated 18.11.2005
passed by the Additional District Judge - cum - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Amristar, whereby claim of the appellants has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that
on 02.04.2001, the inhabitants of village Cheema Khurd were leveling the road by
putting earth, on the road with the help of tractor trolleys, which was going to
Rasulpur. After finishing the work Gurmukh Singh son of Vir Singh was going to
his house on the tractor trolley. At about 8 P.M when Gurmukh Singh came in
front of the house of Jasbir Singh, there was a turning point of the street. When he
tried to take turn, the tractor struck against the scooter of Sukhraj Singh, who was
coming from the front side and Sukhraj Singh received multiple injuries. He was
shifted to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Emergency Ward, Amristar where he died on
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -2-
the same day at about 9.30 PM. It was the case of the claimants that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1
(Gurmukh Singh). The matter was reported to the police, on the same day. The
claimant contended that the police had taken the thumb impression of Sarwan
Singh on blank papers and in connivance with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the police
had not recorded the FIR and only DDR was recorded to the suitability of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the claim petition, the claimants have sought
compensation to the extent of Rs. 10 lakh.
3. Upon notice, the respondents contested the petition and denied the
factum of accident.
4. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether Sukhraj Singh died in a motor vehicle accident which
took place on 02.04.2001 on account of rash and negligent driving of
the tractor bearing No.PB-46-B-4378 driven by Gurmukh Singh
respondent no.1? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to
seek compensation, if so to what extent and from which of the
respondents? OPP
3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties? OPP
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
5. Whether respondent No.1 Gurmukh Singh was not having valid
and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPP
6. Relief.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal
did not appreciate the evidence put-forth before it and even after noticing that there
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -3-
is no denial to the fact of accident as well as to the death of Sukhraj Singh, the
claim petition is dismissed. Learned counsel further contends that only on the
ground that no evidence was led to substantiate the version that the signatures were
taken on blank paper and DDR was written as per suitability of the respondents,
claim of the appellant was denied.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argued that complainant
- Sarwan Singh (PW-1) father of the deceased (Sukhraj Singh) had deposed that
his signatures were taken on blank paper, but no evidence was produced regarding
the same and no complaint against the police officials was shown. He further
submits that there was no eye-witness to the incidence therefore the appeal is liable
to be dismissed and no compensation should be granted to the claimant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record.
7. After going through the records, this Court concludes as under:-
(i) A perusal of the award shows that as per the complaint, the admitted
fact is that the accident took place on 02.04.2001 at about 8 PM. Further
deceased (Sukhraj Singh) received multiple injuries and he was shifted to
Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Emergency Ward, Amristar, where he died on
the same day at 9.30 PM;
(ii) That Sarwan Singh, father of the deceased (Sukhraj Singh) deposed as
PW-1 and stated the incidence by way of affidavit which was placed on
record as Exhibit PW-1/A.
(iii) A perusal of the award shows that there was no contradiction in the
statement in the cross-examination of PW-1 Sarwan Singh as well.
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -4-
(iv) Further, none of the respondents stepped into witness box to rebut the
allegations made by the claimant.
(v) It is not the case that the factum of accident was not proved and
perusal of the statement of Sarwan Singh PW-1 shows that deceased
(Sukhraj Singh) was coming on scooter and Gurmukh Singh was going to
his house on tractor-trolley and when he reached in front of house of Jasbir
Singh, there was a turning point and he tried to take the turn rashly and
negligently and struck his tractor against Sukhraj Singh (deceased), who was
coming from the front side. This shows that it is not the case that the
deceased (Sukhraj Singh) was driving rashly and negligently but while
turning the tractor-trolley it was Gurmukh Singh who was driving tractor
bearing No.PB-46-B-4378. It is also observed that no report of the
mechanical examination of the vehicle was there on record.
(vi) Even mother of the deceased (Sukhraj Singh) deposed as PW-2 by
way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A about the death of her son Sukhraj Singh in
accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Gurmukh Singh
(respondent No.1).
(vii) Learned Tribunal only on the ground that there was no eye-witness,
dismissed the claim petition. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact
that there was no denial or rebuttal to the incidence/statement made by the
complainant - Sarwan Singh (PW-1) father of deceased - Sukhraj Singh.
Learned Tribunal only on the ground that there is no eye-witness except for
the DDR lodged by the father of the deceased (Sukhraj Singh) i.e. Sarwan
Singh denied the compensation to the claimant.
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -5-
(viii) Learned Tribunal after noticing down the examination of PW-1 i.e.
Sarwan Singh and his affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A and Parkash Kaur (PW-2),
mother of the deceased and her affidavit Ex. PW-2/A with effect to the
incidence of accident, denied the claim of the appellant on the ground that
there is scanty evidence.
(ix) Further the post mortem of Sukhraj Singh (deceased) was also proved
as Ex.A/1.
(x) Even after considering that none of the respondents stepped into
witness box to subtantiate the plea of denial, the learned Tribunal dismissed
the claim petition. The factum of accident was not denied/rebutted by the
respondents.
(xi) Further it has been observed that though PW-2 Parkash Kaur mother
of the deceased was examined and stated the factum of accident but only on
the ground that she was not eye-witness to the accident, the claim of the
appellant has been rejected.
(xii) On the one hand, learned Tribunal has decided issue No.1 and 2
against the claimant on the ground that rash and negligent driving of tractor-
trolley by respondent No.1 is not established. On the other hand, issue No.3
i.e. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary
parties, has been decided against the respondent on the ground that it is
specific version of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by respondent No.1 and in view
of the specific plea taken by the claimant, there was no necessity to implead
the owner and insurer of the scooter. So far as issue No.4 is concerned
regarding the maintainability of the claim petition, learned Tribunal has
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -6-
decided it in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Issue No.5
"as to whether respondent No.1 Gurmukh Singh was not having valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident" is decided against the
insurance company since it could not be proved by leading any evidence.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita and Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation & Another [2019(2) R.C.R (Civil) 209] in Para 31 has
held as under:-
"31. Similarly, the issue of non-examination of the pillion rider,
Rajulal Khateek, would not be fatal to the case of the appellants. The
approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to
find fault with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case
but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether
that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. This court, in Dulcina Fernandes
(supra), faced a similar situation where the evidence of claimant's
eye-witness was discarded by the Tribunal and the respondent was
acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court,
however took the view that the material on record was prima facie
sufficient to establish that the respondent was negligent. In the present
case, therefore, the Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the
appellants even without the deposition of the pillion rider, Rajulal
Khateek, since the other evidence on record was good enough to
prima facie establish the manner in which the accident had occurred
and the identity of the parties involved in the accident."
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -7-
9. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the
award passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under
Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following
aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different
ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
" Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively.
The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-
centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that
we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of
10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so
2024:PHHC:050046
FAO-294-2006 (O&M) -8-
because that will bring in consistency in respect of those
heads."
11. In view of the above, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to the
calculated amount as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Income Rs.2,000/-
2 Future Prospects @ 40% Rs.8,00 /-
3 Deduction towards Personal Rs.1400/-
Expenses (50%)
4 Total Income Rs.16,800/- (1400 x 12)
5 Multiplier of 18 Rs.3,02,400/- (16,800 x 18)
6 Loss of Consortium
Filial 48,000 x 2 = Rs.96,000/-
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.04,34,400/-
12. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
March 22, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
