High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Smt.Sushma widow of Shri Bal Kishan dece v. Haryana Milk Foods Limited, Kaithal Road - FAO-1119-1998  RD-P&H 7363 (15 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO NO.1119 OF 1998
Date of Decision: 02-8-2006
1.Smt.Sushma widow of Shri Bal Kishan deceased, 2.Shri Pawan Kumar son of Shri Tilak Ram, 3.Smt.Krishna Devi wife of Shri Pawan Kumar, all residents of House No.55/9, Krishna Gali, Narwana, District Jind (Haryana) .....Appellants
1.Haryana Milk Foods Limited, Kaithal Road, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through Shri PK Goel, M.D.Haryana Milk Food Ltd., r/o Kaithal Road Pehowa.
2.Shri Sukha Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh, resident of Village Kaul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala
3.United India Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Insurer of Truck No.HYQ 5268 and HRQ 1407.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R S MADAN
PRESENT: Mr.Sarwan Gupta,Advocate with
for the appellants.
for the respondents.
The present FAO arises out of the award dated 27-7-1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in claim petition No.38 of 1987 whereby the claimants-appellants were awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,624/- with respect to the death of FAO NO.1119 OF 1998
Bal Kishan in the road side accident which took place on 8-3-1987 at Pehowa.
In brief, the facts of the case are that on 8-3-1987 Bal Kishan, aged 29 years, employed with the Haryana Milk Foods Limited, Pehowa as an Assistant, was standing near the weigh bridge along with Naresh Kumar. At about 6.00 P.M. truck No.HYQ 5268 belonging to the Haryana Milk Foods driven by Sukha Singh, respondent No.2 came there.
It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the stationary truck No.HRQ 1407. This truck hit against Bal Kishan and he suffered injuries and was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh where he succumbed to injuries on 17-3-1987.
It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that Bal Kishan was earning Rs.1500/- per month. They sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
The respondents contested the petition and admitted the death of Bal Kishan. It was pleaded that liability for the payment of compensation is of the Insurance Company. It was also explained by respondent No.2 that the accident took place all of a sudden. However, the Insurance Company disputed its liability to pay the compensation.
The parties went on trial on the following issues: "1.Whether the death of Bal Kishan took place on account of rashness and negligence on the part of Sukha Singh respondent No.2, driver of truck No.HYQ 5268? OPP
2.If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled to? OPP FAO NO.1119 OF 1998
3.Whether the driver of the truck did not possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR
4.Whether the liability of the Insurance Company is limited? OPR
5.Whether the owner of the truck has transferred the vehicle, if so, to what effect? OPR
6.Whether the truck was not being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy? OPR
7. Relief." Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions raised in the pleadings.
Learned Tribunal returned findings on issue No.1 by observing that accident in question was a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, driver of truck No.HYQ 5268.
While disposing of issue No.2, the Tribunal took up the annual income of the deceased after deducting 1/3rd amount towards
expenses of the self maintenance of the deceased as well as by applying multiplier of 16, which worked out the compensation as Rs.1,14,624/- and thereby decided the finding of this issue in favour of the claimants.
Issue No.3 was not pressed. Therefore, it was decided against the respondents.
The findings of issues No.4,5 and 6 were also returned against the Insurance Company and thereby the award for a sum of Rs.1,14,624/- was passed in favour of the claimants. However, the claim FAO NO.1119 OF 1998
with respect to Pawan Kumar, father of the deceased was rejected being Class II heir.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any infirmity in assessing the compensation by the Tribunal keeping in view the income of the deceased except that 1/3rd cut, applied by the Tribunal as
an expenses of the deceased on self maintenance is on higher side. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.
The learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation strictly in accordance with the procedure established in catena of the judgments rendered by this Court as well as by the Apex Court.
I, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal keeping in view the income of the deceased.
In the net result, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
( R S MADAN)
August 02, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.