High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
INDERJIT SINGH v. SARWAN KUMAR - FAO-1937-2005  RD-P&H 55 (19 July 2005)
Inder jit Singh Vs. Sarwan Kumar
Present: Mr.Gurdial Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar ( for short the 'Tribunal') dated 6-01-2005 whereby the claimants have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of death of Ramesh Kumar alias Rameshwar Kumar, who died 2001.
According to the claimants the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of his death. He was working as a labourer at the brick kiln and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month.
On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor-trolley No. PIQ 5529 belonging to the appellant The Tribunal also observed that the claim of the claimants FAO No. 1937 of 2005
that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month had not been controverted by the appellant-respondent. Accordingly, after deducting Rs.
1,000/- on account of expenses of the deceased on himself the total dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs 2,000/- per month i.e.
Rs.24,000/- per annum. Keeping in view the age of the deceased , multiplier of 15 was applied and thus a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was determined as compensation payable to the claimants.
Mr.Jaswal, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the tractor-trolley PIQ 5529 was involved in the accident. According to him, it was tractor-trolley No. PIQ 4341 which was involved in the accident. In support of his contention, he referred to the order (Annexure R-2) whereby the tractor-trolley No.PIQ 4341 had been ordered to be released on spurdari to the applicant. There is no merit in this contention. This issue has been disucssed by the Tribunal in para 12 of its order. The Tribunal in order to ascertain the correct position, had summoned criminal case file of FIR No.604 dated 12-9-2001 lodged on the date of the accident itself and found that it was tractor-trolly No.PIQ 5529 which had been taken into possession by the Police and not FAO No. 1937 of 2005
tractor-trolley No.PIQ 4341 as alleged by the appellant. It was clear from the evidence of Head Constable Kishan Kumar that it was tractor-trolley No.5529 which had been mechanically got tested by him. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to controvert these findings. We, are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was right in holding that tractor-trolley No.PIQ 5529 and not tractor-trolley No.PI Q 4341 was involved in the accident.
Learned Counsel then contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. According to him, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month . He also contended that even otherwise the dependency taken at Rs 2,000/- per month is also excessive. He also disputed the multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal. There is no merit in these contentions either. The Tribunal has clearly noticed that there was no rebuttal to the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs 3,000/- per month. In the absence of any such rebuttal the Tribunal was justified in accepting this claim. Faurther the dependency determined by the Tribunal by deducting 1/3rd . i.e. Rs. 1,000/-
per month is also quite reasonable. Multiplier of 15 can also not be said to be excessive in view of the fact that the deceased was 45 years old.
FAO No. 1937 of 2005
No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
July 4,2005 ( VIRENDER SINGH),
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.