Pritam Kaur and Ors v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors

IN

Pritam Kaur thro

Ramesh Kumar CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Ms Mr for

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The

29.07.2006 pass Act, 1988 by the Tribunal' vide w FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri (deceased) alon Muzafra to Am

9.15 p.m. when three-wheeler st correct left hand son namely, Jas

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da ough her LRs

Versus and others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Parminder Singh, Advocate the appellant. s. Simran, Advocate for r. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate and respondent No.3 – Insurance Co r. B. R. Rana, Advocate for respo -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been pr sed in the claim petition under e learned Motor Accident Claim which the claim petition filed by N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are tha ngwith his son Baljinder Sing mbala City by driving three-whee they reached near village Bulla topped running due to some me d side of the road on kacha berm swant Singh to come with candl

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-129-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 05.09.2024

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA

o. ondent No.5. referred against the award da Section 166 of the Motor Vehic ms Tribunal, Ambala (for short - ' the claimant was dismissed. at on 02-04-1999, Surjan Sin gh was going from Petrol Pum eler No.HR-01-GA-0359. At ab ana on Hissar to Ambala road, th echanical defect. He took it to m and called telephonically his ot es and tools, etc., so that the thr

ated cles 'the ngh mp, bout heir ther ree-

wheeler could b Surjan Singh wa checking/repairi meantime, one Ambala side bei Y-0208, which was perhaps try went on the ext three persons pr three persons su dragged with th its driver and th to Civil Hospita account of injur account of sole, driven by respon

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

be checked and repaired. At abo as holding candle in his hand Ja ing three-wheeler with the h maruti car bearing registratio ing followed by another maruti C was being driven rashly and n ying to overtake the car going reme wrong side of the road on resent there as well as against th uffered multiple, simple and gr he car up to some distance and th hen fled away from the spot with al, Ambala City, but Surjan Sing ries suffered by him in the acc rash and negligent driving of m ndent no.1. on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "Whether Surjan Singh died Singh received injuries in negligent driving of Ma respondent no.1-Ramesh Kum

out 10.00 p.m. when the decease aswant Singh was in the process help of Baljinder Singh, in on No.HR-26-D-0062 came fr Car bearing registration No. PB-negligently by respondent no.1 ahead and in that process said n kacha berm and hit against all he three wheeler. As a result, all rievous injuries. Surjan Singh w hen the car was put in back gear h the car. All the injured were tak gh died on reaching the hospital cident. The accident took place maruti car No. PB-10-Y-0208, be , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow d and Baljinder Singh and Jasw accident caused due to rash a aruti Car No.PB-10-Y-0208 mar? OPP.

ed – s of rom and car was r by ken l on on eing nied wing want and

5.

Aft record, the lear appellants filed SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea Tribunal did n perspective and

7.

Per Company conte rightly been dism

8.

I h record of this ca "15 in t as P to b

16.

02.

ii) If issue no.1 is proved, to any, the petitioners are entitl OPP.

iii) Whether respondent n compensation, on the ground

iv) Relief" ter hearing learned counsel for rned Tribunal dismissed the cla the present appeal for grant of co S OF THE COUNSEL FOR T arned counsel for the claimants-a not take into consideration th has wrongly dismissed the claim r contra, learned counsel for ends that the claim petition file missed. have heard learned counsel for ase. Relevant portion of the judgm

¶5In support of their case clai the witness box as PW2 and clai PW3. Both these witnesses are th be the son of deceased Surjan Sin

In his deposition PW3 Balj

04.99, he was returning from vi

o what amount of compensation led to and from which responden no.3 is not liable to pay a ds alleged? OPR. the parties and perusing the wh aim petition. Hence the claiman ompensation. HE PARTIES appellants contends that the learn e evidence on record in corr m petition filed by the claimants. r the respondent No.3-Insura ed by the appellants-claimants the parties and perused the wh ment is reproduced hereunder:- imant Jaswant Singh has appea mant Baljinder Singh has appea he injured persons and also happ ngh. inder Singh stated on oath that illage Matrehri to Ambala city o

n, if nts? any hole nts-ned rect

ance has hole ared ared pen t on

thre dev on Jas aut fath thre whe car whe num oth die had Ho he

¶17resp adm has how Car

¶18resp

ee-wheeler. While they were veloped in the three-wheeler. Th one side of the road and he swant Singh to the spot as Jaswa to-mechanic. Jaswant Singh rea her Surjan Singh and Jaswant ee-wheeler and he (i.e.PW3) w eeler, in the meantime two cars r, which was running in a zigzag eeler and the other car stopped mber of offending car was PB-her car was HR-26D-0062. In sa ed on account of those injuries o d sustained injuries on his legs a spital, Ambala City for about 15 has to take the medicines for abo

During his cross examina pondent no.2, previous owne mitted that FIR was recovered o s mentioned the number of offe wever, denied the suggestion th r No.0062 and not by car numbe

During his further cross exam pondents no.1 & 2A, driver an

near village Balana, some fa They then parked the three-whee called telephonically his brot ant Singh was learning the work ached at about 9.00 p.m. While Singh were sitting in front of was applying the jack to the thr came from Ambala side. The fr g manner, struck against their thr d at the back of offending car. T 10-Y-0208 whereas the number aid accident injuries and his fat n reaching the hospital. He him and had remained admitted in C 5/20 days. Even after his discha out 5/6 months. tion, as conducted on behalf er of car No.PB-10-Y-0208, on basis of his statement wherein ending car as HR-26-D-0062. H hat accident was caused by Mar er 0208. mination, as conducted on behalf nd new owner of car No.PB-10

fault eler ther k of his ree-ront ree-The r of ther self Civil arge f of he n he He, ruti lf of 0-Y-

was cla acc adm mop pla pla sug whe his

¶19resp adm he tha acc acc sta dam

¶20Jas on his

08, he admitted that he had not s s laying under the three-wheel rified that his brother Jaswant cident that accident had been c mitted that his brother Jaswant ped. He however, denied that ac ace. He also denied the suggest ace between three-wheeler and ggestion that car no.0208 came l eeler. He admitted that three-wh father, who was driving the sam During his cross examinati pondents no.4 & 5, previous ow mitted that both cars had stopped was unable to walk due to the i at head-light of any of those tw cident. He however, admitted cident had also been damaged tion he saw only car No.0208 mage on car No. 0208.

Coming to the deposition of swant Singh, who appeared in th record in his statement that on elder brother that their three-w

seen the accident taking place as ler and was applying the jack. t Singh told him after 4/5 days caused by car No.0208. He furt t Singh had come to the spot o ccident of the moped had also ta tion that the accident actually to d the moped. He also denied later on and just touched the thr heeler in question was belonging me on the day of accident. ion, as conducted on behalf wner of car No.HR-26-D-0062, d at the place of accident, but si injuries on his leg, he had not s wo cars had been damaged in that the car, which caused d and that when he visited po there, but he did not notice a the only other eye-witness, nam he witness-box as PW2, it has co receiving telephonic message fr wheeler had gone out of order,

s he He s of ther n a ken ook ree-g to f of he ince een lice any ely, ome rom

visi kat bro atte tho whe sus also acc him was day bec Am offe

¶21resp offe adm tak of t

ited the spot and found that t tcha portion of Hisar-Ambala other started applying the jack. empting to overtake each other ose cars, bearing no. PB-10-Y-eeler. As a result of said accide stains injuries. His brother Baljin o sustained injuries. His brother count of those injuries on reachi mself had sustained injuries ove s referred to PGI, Chandigarh, w ys. He further deposed that im came unconscious and regained e accident. Police then recorded mbala from Chandigarh, wher fending car to the police. During his cross examinati pondent no.1 & 2-A driver an 08, he admitted that he became e accident. He alleged that he or fending car and had not noted mitted that his brother Baljinde king place and that he told him ( the offending car only after ret

three wheeler was parked on road near village Balana. In the meantime two maruti ca came from Ambala side and one -0208, dashed against their thr ent, he was thrown on one side a nder Singh and father Surjan Sin r however, died on the same day ing Civil Hospital, Ambala City. er his head, left palm and leg a where he remained admitted for mmediately after the accident, the consciousness after 3/4 days d his statement after his return rein he disclosed the number ion, as conducted on behalf nd new owner of car No.PB-10 unconscious within 2/3 minutes rally remembered the number of d down same anywhere. He a er Singh had not seen the accid (i.e. to Baljinder Singh) the num turning from PGI, Chandigarh.

His ars, e of ree-and ngh y on He and he s of n to of f of 0-Y-s of f the also dent mber

den mop wh was sug thre no. atte

¶22upo Gup sec i.e. (Ex pol aga mo sta

¶23Ahl rec of J by sta

nied the suggestion that accide ped. He volunteered, to add tha ich he had parked in front of s also damaged on its being h ggestion that the accident had ee-wheeler and the moped. He a 0208 has simply touched those empting to over-take car no.0062

In their documentary eviden on copy of charge sheet (Exh.P1 pta, Judicial Magistrate, Am ctions 304-A, 279,337, IPC again respondents No.1 & 5, copy of xh.P2), whereby final report ha lice against respondents no.1 & ainst unknown driver of car rtem report (Exh.P4) of Surjan tement of Baljinder Singh (Mark

On the other hand, responde lmad to the court of Sh.Y.S.Rath cord the statement (Exh.R1) of B Jaswant Singh and statement (Ex the court of Illaqa Magistrat tement (Exh.R4) of Baljinder Si

ent had already taken place w t he had gone to the spot on mop the three-wheeler and said mop it by the same car. He denied already taken place between also denied the suggestion that vehicles and that said car was

¶2nce, claimants have placed relia 1), whereby the court of Sh. Deep bala has framed charges un nst Ramesh Kumar and Raj Kum f report under section 173, Cr.P as been furnished to the court 5, copy of FIR (Exh.P3), as lodg no.HR-26-D-0062, copy of p n Singh and copy of supplement k-A). ents examined Aurn Sharma (RW hore, ACJM, Ambala. He placed Baljinder Singh, statement (Exh.R xh.R3) of Inder Mohan as record te. He also placed on record ingh, as recorded by the police

with ped ped car not nce pak nder mar, P.C. t by dged post tary W1), d on R2) ded

bas (Ex pla Inv que mec of m

¶24as R car pur

8.3 whe tha dar too acc whe

¶25resp adm suff whe

sis of which FIR of the prese xh.R4) under section 161, Cr.P ace (Exh.R5) of the place vestigating Officer, mechanica estion, mechanical report (Exh. chanical report (Exh.R8) of car mechanical report (Exh.R9) of ca

Ramesh Kumar, respondent RW2 and deposed that on the d r bearing number PB-10-Y-0208 rchased by Jai Pal, respondent 30 p.m. when he reached near eeler and a luna (mopad) had m at time. He stopped there for a rkness his car just touched thr ok place with his car. He had cident with said three-wheeler an eeler and two-wheeler (moped).

During his cross-examinat pondents no.4 & 5, owner and d mitted that his car was damaged ffered minor injuries due to th eeler.

ent case was recorded, statem P.C. of Inder Mohan, rough s of occurrence as prepared al report (Exh.R6) of moped R7) of three-wheeler in questi r number PB-10-Y-0208 and c ar number HR-26-D-0062. no.1, appeared in the witness b day of accident he was going in 8 at a moderate speed, said car w no.2-A, on the same day. At ab r village Balana, he saw a thr met with an accident. It was dark while to see the accident. Due ree-wheeler, however, no accid d not seen any other car caus nd the accident was between thr

tion, as conducted on behalf driver of car No.HR-26-D-0062. d in said accident and that he a he impact of his car with thr

ment site-by in ion, opy box his was bout ree-k at e to dent sing ree-f of He also ree-

¶26of t 26-any imp he Sh. own

¶27Ins wit to per resp adm his as d ser

¶28D-0 tha resp rea

During his further cross-exa the claimants, he shown his inab -D-0062 was following his car. H y complaint before any highe plication in the accident in quest had since been acquitted in s Y.S. Rathore, ACJM, Ambala. ner of car No.HR-26-D-0062.

During his further cross-exa urance company of car no.PB-1 th new owner of his car i.e, Jaip be the grandson of his uncle. rsonally Amarjeet Kaushal, Ve pondents no.2, 4, 4-A & 5. He f e criminal case wherein he ha mitted that no other car was run ignorance that in the present p driver of car No.HR26-D-0062 a rved upon him through Veer Pal.

Respondent No.5, Raj Kuma 0062, has also appeared in the at on 02.04.99 he was driver pondent no.4. On that day he ached near village Balana, he

amination, as conducted on beh bility in saying whether car no.H He admitted that he had not mo er authority regarding his fa tion by the police. He admitted t aid criminal case by the court He denied knowing any Virp amination as conducted on behalf 10-Y-0208, he admitted his relat al, respondent no.2A, who happ He further that he do not kn eer Pal Raj Kumar, and Tejin further admitted that he was fac as since been acquitted. He a nning alongwith his car. He sho proceedings he was initially sho and at that stage his summons w

ar, the driver of the car No.HR-witness box as RW3 and depo on said car owned by Veer P was going on said car and wh saw a scooty and three-whee

half HR-ved alse that t of pal, lf of tion pens now nder cing also own own were osed Pal, hen

stan mo he on

¶29cla as adm bea He No. rep

¶30Ins nei trav

¶31del car Kau

¶10(Ex

nding near the road in an acci e side of those accidental vehicle e road and had not come down rning, when he was called by th came to know there that his car offending vehicle.

During his cross examinatio imants, he admitted that he was the owner used to call him occ mitted that on the day of acci aring No. PB-10-Y-0208 running had never informed the police .PB-10-Y-0208. He admitted presentation before any authori

During his further cross exa urance Company of car No.P ither Veer Pal nor Tejinder Sin veling with him in said car.

Counsel for respondent no livery-receipt (Exh.R10) dated 0 r NO.PB-10-Y-0208 by Jaipal, ushal, respondent no.2 on 02

04.99 of the possession of sa xh.R12) dated 08.04.99.

ident condition. He just crossed es alongwith other vehicle plying from his car. It was only on n he police to the police station, t has been shown in said acciden on, as conducted on behalf of not a permanent driver on said casionally on daily labor basis. ident he had not noticed any g in front of his car or near his c e that accident was caused by that he had not made a ty regarding his false implicati mination as conducted on behalf PB-10-Y-0208, he admitted t ngh, respondents No.4 & 4A, w o.2 tendered on record origi

02.04.99 regarding the purchase respondent no.2-A from Amarj

2.04.99, receipt (Exh.R11) da id car by Jaipal and applicat

d by g on next that t as car He car car. car any ion. lf of that were inal e of jeet ated

¶32wit his he cha stre acc

¶10at inte pla Bal Sin rea acc at reg rec sub unk inv resp pol

Counsel for claimant submit 08, i.e. Ramesh Kumar respond tness box as RW2 has admitted car just touched with the three-w himself suffered minor injuries allaned by the police for causing essed that the mechanical repor cidental marks thereupon. The 00 p.m. on 02.04.99 and FIR (E about 1.30 a.m. on 03.04.99 by ervening time has duly been exp ace at a distance of about eight k ljinder Singh and his brother Jas ngh were brought to the hosp aching the hospital and Jaswan count of his serious condition an Civil Hospital, Ambala City garding their arrival upon whic corded the statement of injure bmitted on behalf of the claiman known driver of Maruti Car N vestigation drivers of both the ponsible for causing the accid lice submitted report under sect

tted that driver of car No. PB-10 dent no.1, while appearing in in very words that due to darkn wheeler and was damaged and t due to that impact and that he w g the accident in question. It is a rt (Exh.R8) of said car also sho accident has taken place at ab Exh.P3) was promptly got record y injured Baljinder Singh and plained that the accident has ta kilometer from Ambala and inju swant alongwith their father Surj pital, but Surjan Singh died af nt referred to PGI, Chandigarh nd Baljinder Singh was hospitali and a medical ruqqa was s ch police reached the hospital a ed Baljinder Singh. It is furt nts that although FIR is against N.HR-26-D0062 alone, but dur e cars were found negligent a dent in question and accordin tion 173, Cr.P.C. (Exh.P2) aga

0-Y-ness that was also ows bout ded ken ured rjan fter on ized sent and ther t an ring and ngly

bot (Ex Bot Sin and PB res Sin

¶33tha sta is w whe ind sam a fa

¶34all cha orig Kum own

th of them and the Illaqa Mag xh.P1) against both of them for th the injured persons, namely, J ngh (PW3) had deposed in same d, therefore, Ramesh Kumar, r -10-Y-0208 be held responsible ulting into the death of Surjan S ngh and Jaswant Singh. On the other hand, counsel fo at both the drivers of cars in tement just to support the claim writ at large in their pleadings erein he had admitted the accide ere is no evidence at all estab dependent eye witness of the occ e injured persons self establish me are and the concocted version false claim from the Insurance Co

In support of his stand, cou pointed out the manner in w anged their pleadings from stag ginal petition as filed on 25.05.1 mar as the driver of car no.H ner of said car and there was

gistrate also framed charge-sh r causing the accident in questi Jaswant Singh (PW2) and Baljin e tune against respondent no.1 o respondent no.1, driver of car N e for causing accident in quest Singh and bodily injuries to Balji or Insurance Company pointed n question have made a tailo mants as the collusion between th even and if the deposition of RW ent in very words, is put aside, th blishing any accident. There is currence and the deposition of b hes prima-facie contradictory t ns projected by the witnesses to ompany. nsel for insurance company firs which parties to the proceedi ge to stage. It is shown that in 1999 claimants have shown Ram HR-26-D0062 and Veer Pal as no reference of car no.PB-10

heet ion. nder only No. tion ider out ored hem W2, hen both that get st of ings mesh 0-Y-

tha veh cou No. rep HR

¶35Y-0 and Cou ove am ma Tej cla for bea acc off. am Kau Ori

¶08In order dated 28-09-99 the at the learned counsel for both hicle in question was no insured unsel is presently representing R . PB-10-Y-0208 and its own presenting Veer Pal, who has be R-26-D-0062.

Thereafter, petitioner moved e petition incorporating Ramesh 0208, Veer Pal as well as one R d there was surprisingly no ref unsel for respondents no.162 a er said application and same ended petition filed. However, c de a statement 20.10.2000 for jinder Singh Mann, respondents im petition as from the Insuran respondent no.1 it has come o aring no. PB-10-Y-0208 is own count of said statement name of f Counsel for claimant then endment for amendment petition ushal, owner of car No.PB-10 iental Insurance Company as

Tribunal has made an observat these respondents has stated t d at the time of accident. The sa Ramesh Kumar as a driver of ner Amarjit Kaushal, but is een shown as the owner of car d an application for amendmen Kumar as driver of car No.PB-Rajinder Singh Maan as its ow ference of car no. HR-26-D-00 appended his note of no-object e was accordingly accepted a counsel for claimants thereafter r striking of names Veer Pal a s no.2 & 2A, respectively, from nce Particulars supplied by coun on record that vehicle in quest ned by one Amarjit Kaushal. f both said respondents were str again moved an application n seeking incorporation of Ama 0-Y-0208 as respondent no.2 a s respondent no.3. Counsel

tion that ame car not no. t of wner

¶062tion and r on and nsel tion On ruck for arjit and

resp allo allo

¶36file for on veh who

¶20as resp beh Ram tha of h Am

¶37of c esta rec (Ex

pondent no.1 made a stateme owing the amendment applica owed and amended petition was f

Thereafter, respondents filed ed replication and issues were fra evidence. Again claimants mov

19.08.02 seeking incorporation hicles as respondents. Veer Pal o were previously shown as o 08 and whose name were subse

10.2000, were again impleaded respondents no.4 & 4A being o

¶62Counsel for respondent n pondent no.2A-Jai Pal Singh, a half. It is not out of place to men mesh Kumar, while appearing in at said Jai Pal is in his relations his uncle. RW2 has further dep marjit Kaushal, i.e. respondent no

Both Amarjit Kaushal and car No.PB-10-Y-0208. There is n ablish the ownership. Only docu ceipt (Exh.R10) and a receip xh.R11), as tendered in evidenc

ent that he has no objection ation and same was accordin filed on 14.03.01. d their written statement, claima amed on 20.02.02 and case was ved an application for amendme of the drivers & owners of both Singh and Tejinder Singh Man wners of maruti car No.PB-10 quently struck off vide order da d in the application for amendm owners of maruti car No.HR-26 no.1 also appeared on behalf and filed written statement on ntion here that respondent no.1 n witness box as RW2 has admit s as he happens to be the grand posed that he does not known a o.2. Jai Pal has been shown as own no RC of said, vehicle on record uments in this regard are a deliv pt of resumption of possess ce by Sh.B S Jaspal, Advocate,

in ngly ants put ents nna, 0-Y-ated ment 6-D-f of his i.e. tted dson any ners d to very sion

Am sam by

¶02Kau rec Adv Am Ran resp cla Ran

¶38no. reg Illa reg coo Jai sign con Sun

marjit Kaushal, respondent no.2. me was exhibited on 02.04.1999 Jai Pal, respondent no.2A, adm

04.1999 at 5.00 p.m. on the pa ushal and that he has taken the ceipt is signed by Jai Pal and atte vocate. There is no signature of marjit Kaushal, on said documen ngi Ram to this document is pondents no.1-Ramesh Kumar ( e record that the name of said R im petitions as son of one Desh e witness box Ramesh Kumar ha ngi Ram.

A perusal of Exh.Bll furthe 2A, has resumed the possession gistered owner i.e. Sh. Amarjit K aqa Magistrate has ordered for t gistered owner. He has also operation of the registered owne i Pal has been identified by one nature on 10.04.99 itself. Aga ntain any signature of the regis nil Kumar is non else, but the

. A perusal of Exh.R10 shows t 9, 1.e. on the day of accident its mitting his purchase of said car ayment of Rs.1,42,000/- to Ama e possession thereof. Said deliv ested by Rangi Ram and B S Jas f the then owner of the vehicle nt and it raises a suspicion. Witn no other, but tha father of

(RW2). It is also very disturbing Ramesh Kumar is appearing in heyo Ram whereas while coming as admitted himself to be the son er shows that Jai Pal, respond n of car No. PB-10-Y-0208 from Kaushal on 10.04.99 as the cour the release of vehicle in the name shown his thankfulness for er. It is duly signed by Jai Pal a e Sunil Kumar who had affixed ain this document also does stered owner i.e. Amarjit Kaush e real brother of respondent no

that self, r on arjit very spal i.e. ness g on g in n of dent m its rt of e of and his not hal. o.1-

Ram Thu pur Sai que wh has alle Am fav aga ass It is i.e.

¶39Ins cla file Sin LRs

¶40tha und

mesh Kumar, as admitted by R us, the father of Ramesh Kum rchase of car No. PB-10-Y-020 id car has been shown as on estion which has taken place on ile being driven by Ramesh Kum s been shown as a witness to th eged new purchaser Jai Pal fr marjit Kaushal on 10.04.99 afte vour of registered owner. At the ainst that there is no RC of said sertions of respondents and their s also not out of place to note he maruti car No.HR-26-D-0062, i

Coming to the depositions urance Company pointed out imants also for their personal ed separate claim petition, and a ngh, regarding which a separate s of Surjan Singh including PW2 ere is no other independent witne

A perusal of the deposition at he had not seen the happenin der the three-wheeler at the tim

Ramesh Kumar in the witness b mar was a witness to the alleg 08 on 02.04.99 at about 5.00 p offending car in the accident n 02.04.99 at about 9.00/10.00 p mar. The brother of Ramesh Kum he resumption of said vehicle by from the alleged registered ow er it being released on superari e cots repetition, it has to be no d vehicle on record to support r documents Exh. R10 & Exh. R-ere that the RC of the other vehi is also not on record. s of PW2 & PW3, counsel that both these Witnesses are injures, regarding which they h are also the LRs of deceased Surj e petition has been filed by all 2 & PW3. It is also pointed out t ess of the occurrence. n of Baljinder Singh (PW3) sho ng of the accident as he was ly me of accident and was applying

box. ged p.m. t in p.m. mar y its wner i in oted -11. cle, for had rjan that ows

jac was Sur hou whe utte sta and dra bac grin was oth

¶41occ cla pla Jas

¶42acc 3-4

ck for its repairs. He admitted it s his brother Jaswant Singh (PW e accident that the accident h rprisingly, the FIR (Exh.P3) of t urs of the accident on the basis erein he has given the minute de ered a single word about car ted therein is that there were tw e first car crossed them and there eir three-wheeler causing injurie d the body of his father entan agged it to a certain distance an ckwards and then ran from th nding machine of floors was the s also sitting with them, had t her persons to the hospital.

Said Inder Mohan was admit currence, but he has not been imants.PW3 has admitted that h ace, therefore, the only witnes swant Singh (PW2).

Jaswant Singh (PW2) had d cident he became unconscious an 4 days of the accident as he has

t in very words and clarified tha W3) who told him after 4-5 days had been caused by Car No.2 the case was registered within f of the statement of Baljinder Sin etails of the occurrence and has No. PB-10-Y-0208. What he h wo cars coming at a fast speed a eafter the second car struck aga es to him as well as to his brot ngled underneath said car, wh d then the car driver driven his e spot. One Inder Mohan, wh erein in the three-wheeler and w then shifted them with the help ttedly an independent witness of called in the witness box by he had not seen the accident tak ss to prove the accident rema deposed that immediately after nd regained his consciousness af suffered injuries over his head a

at it s of

¶208four ngh not had and inst ther hich car hose who p of f the king ains fter

oth imm adm he adm unc bro of t car also hos mo rec one acc dam veh occ ora dow his be PW

her parts of the body. His cond mediately referred to PGI, C mitted for 3-4 days. It was only disclosed the number of the offen mitted that within 2-3 minute conscious. Prior to his disclosin other and to the police, his broth the occurrence within four hou r. Both these brothers i.e. PW2 o sustained grievous injures a spitalized for a number of days a nths altogether, but none of the cord of any of them or their MLR eir medicines and treatment. Th e of their three-wheeler and mop cident, but they had not claim mges and have also not placed o hicles to support their assertions currence. In such a situation the ally remembered the number of t wn same anywhere and then tol brother after returning from P natural and trustworthy. It is ag W2 was having such a balanced m

dition was so critical that he w Chandigarh where he remain after his return from the PGI t nding car to the police. He has a es of the accident he has beco ng the name of offending car to her has already got lodged an F urs of the accident against anot & PW3, has alleged that they h and for which they had to rem and have to take the treatment f em had placed on record treatm Rs or expenses incurred by them hey are from labourer section a ped had also been damaged in s med any re-imbursement for th on record any bills regarding th s. They had lost their father in s e as assertion made by PW2 that the offending car and had not no ld the number to the police and PGI, Chandigarh does not seems gainst natural course of events t mind at that stage that he had no

was ned that also ome his FIR ther had main four ment m on and said hose hose said t he oted d to s to that

dow lan

¶43by tha mea res his num tha offe rec PW from and cam not wh offe tha whe

wn the number of offending veh nce even after becoming unconsc

Otherwise also the manner o PW2 and PW3 does not depict at PW3 started applying the jac antime offending car dashed a ult of which he himself was thro brother and father suffered inj e cars had stopped at the spot mber of any of the cars. Then i at the number of the other car fending car was attempting to o cord that PW3 was laying under e jack for repairing the three-w W3, he cannot be heard to allege m Ambala side out of which on d struck against their three-wh me and stopped at the back of t te here that this witnesses has l ich had stopped behind the offe e number of this second car in hi fending car. What is most notew at he has alleged that when he sta eeler, his father and brother J

hicle and kept same in his mem cious for hours altogether. of the alleged occurrence narra the true picture. PW2 has depo ck to the three-wheeler and in against their three-wheeler as own on one side and he as well juries. He had not stated that b t or that he had noted down it is quite strange how he depo was HR-26-D-0062 to which overtake. Similarly, it has come r the three-wheeler and was try wheeler. In such of a situation e that he had seen two cars com ne was running in zig-zag man eeler and the other car thereaf the offending car. It is pertinen lodged FIR against said other ending car and he had even quo is FIR as calling the same to be worthy in the deposition of PW3 arted applying the jack to the thr Jaswant set in front of the thr

mory ated osed s a l as both osed on ying n of ming nner fter t to car oted e an 3 is ree-ree-

whe only In offe inju whe he dam Sin dire wit cas offe FIR of t car alo tha car who

44. PW

eeler and the offending car had ly and then injures were suffered other words the father and the e opposite side of the three whe fending car has stuck against the ured person further gets. supp erein he has alleged that he had had parked in front of the three maged on being hit by the same ngh, father of PW2 & PW3, a ection from which the offending tnesses must have deposed that th em and then hit their three wheel se. Meaning thereby that as per fending car first struck against th R (Exh.P3) as recorded on basis the Surjan Singh entangled und r driver then reversed his car an ongwith his car. However, the as at the other car bearing no.HR-2 r and then stopped at the back ole of the deposition of PW3 as s Resultantly, no reliance can b W2 & PW3 as well as upon the

d struck against their three-whee d by the claimants and their fath brother of PW3 must be sitting eeler then the side from which three wheeler. This situation of port from the deposition of P d gone to the spot on moped wh e wheeler and said moped was a e car. Had said moped and Surj long with PW3 were towards g vehicle was coming, then both he offending car first struck aga ler, but that is not so in the pres r the assertions of PW2 & PW3 heir moped. It has also come in s of statement of PW3, that the bo derneath the offending car and nd then car ran away from the s ssertion of PW3 in the witness b 26-D-0062 came after the offend side of the offending car turns self contradictory. be placed upon the depositions e alleged admission of accident

eler her. g on f the PW2 hich also rjan inst sent ody spot box ding s of

RW till cla

¶45tha alle tha suff doc esta cla ANALYSIS OF

9.

A p car No.PB-10-Y was going from his car but denie

10.

Res pleaded by filin further pleaded and on visiting standing there in must have been following his ca

W1, whose identity has remained end and who was certainly imants.

In view of the findings as ab at the death of Surjan Singh has eged by the claimants. Claimant at Jaswant Singh (PW2) and Ba ffered any injury in said ac cumentary evidence nor any de ablish the same. Accordingly, imants. F RECORD perusal of the record shows that Y-0208 filed written statement, m Ambala and other car bearing ed the factum of accident. spondent No.4 i.e. owner of the c ng written statement that no acc that he was called by the police g there he saw another car bea n a damaged condition. He furt n caused by the said car No.P ar on the day of accident.

d doubtful from the very beginn appearing in collusion with bove, claimants have failed to pr actually taken place in the man ts have also miserly failed to pr aljinder Singh (PW3) have actua ccident as there is neither a eposition of the treating doctor this issued is decided against t respondent No.1 i.e. driver of wherein, he admitted that his HR-26D-0062 was going ahead car No.HR-26D-0062 appeared cident took place with his car. e along with his driver and the c aring registration No.PB-10Y-02 ther stated that the accident, if a PB-10Y-0208 as the said car w

ning rove nner rove ally any r to car d of and He car, any,

11.

Jas PW3. Both are both PW-2 and same. Documen were framed un Kumar, i.e. resp 173, Cr.P.C. (E against responde driver of car no Singh and copy

12.

Mr court of Sh.Y.S (Exh.R1) of Ba (Exh.R3) of Ind record the state basis of which section 161, Cr occurrence as p moped in quest mechanical repo report (Exh.R9)

13.

Ram and deposed tha Y-0208 at a mod

want Singh appeared as PW2 the injured persons and also son PW-3 injured in the accident w ntary evidence i.e. copy of charg nder sections 304-A, 279,337, IP pondents No.1 and 5 was produ Exh.P2), whereby final report wa ents no.1 and 5, copy of FIR (E o.HR-26-D-0062, copy of post of supplementary statement of B r. Arjun Sharma was examined S.Rathore, ACJM, Ambala. He ljinder Singh, statement (Exh.R der Mohan as recorded by the Il ement (Exh.R4) of Baljinder Si FIR of the present case was reg r.P.C. of Inder Mohan, rough s prepared by Investigating Offic tion, mechanical report (Exh. ort (Exh.R8) of car number PB-1 of car number HR-26-D-0062. mesh Kumar, respondent no.1, a at on the day of accident he was g derate speed, said car was purch

and Baljinder Singh appeared ns of deceased Surjan Singh. Si were the best eye witnesses to ge sheet (Exh.P1), whereby char PC against Ramesh Kumar and uced. Copy of report under sect as furnished to the court by pol Exh.P3), as lodged against unkno mortem report (Exh.P4) of Sur Baljinder Singh (Mark-A). as RW1, who was Ahlmad to e placed on record the statem R2) of Jaswant Singh and statem llaqa Magistrate. He also placed ngh, as recorded by the police gistered, statement (Exh.R4) un ite-plan (Exh.R5) of the place er, mechanical report (Exh.R6) R7) of three-wheeler in questi 10-Y-0208 and copy of mechani appeared in the witness box as RW going in his car bearing No. PB-hased by Jai Pal, respondent no.2

d as nce rges Raj tion lice own rjan ment ment d on on nder e of ) of ion, ical W2 2-A,

on the same day village Balana, accident. It was Due to darknes with his car. He with said three wheeler (mope respondents no. that his car wa injuries due to th further stated th regarding his f admitted that he Rathore, ACJM Insurance comp criminal case an 0208, i.e. Rame due to darkness that he himself the police for ca car also shows a at about 10.00 a.m. on 03.04.1 his brother Jas

y. He further stated that at abou he saw a three-wheeler and dark at that time. He stopped th s his car touched three-wheeler e further stated that he had not s -wheeler and the accident was d). During his cross-examinat 4 and 5, owner and driver of ca as damaged in the said acciden he impact of a car with three-wh hat he had not moved any com false implication in the accide e had been acquitted in said crim M, Ambala. In his cross-examin pany of car no.PB-10-Y-0208, nd he was acquitted in the sam esh Kumar respondent no.1, wh his car just touched with the th suffered minor injuries due to th ausing the accident in question. M accidental marks thereupon. The p.m. and FIR (Exh.P3) was pro 999 by injured Baljinder Singh want alongwith their father S

ut 8.30 p.m. when he reached n a luna (moped) had met with here for a while to see the accide r, however, no accident took pl seen any other car causing accid s between three-wheeler and tw tion, as conducted on behalf ar No.HR-26-D-0062. He admit nt and that he also suffered mi heeler. In his cross-examination mplaint before any higher autho nt in question by the police. minal case by the court of Sh.Y nation as conducted on behalf , he admitted that he was fac me. The driver of car No.PB-10 ho appeared as RW2 admitted t hree-wheeler and was damaged hat impact and he was challaned Mechanical report (Exh.R8) of s e accident took place on 02.04.19 omptly got recorded at about 1 h. The injured Baljinder Singh a Surjan Singh were brought to

near an ent. lace dent wo-f of tted inor , he rity He Y.S. f of cing 0Y-that and d by said

1.30

hospital, but Su referred to PGI Singh was hospi regarding their statement of inju were found neg accordingly pol both of them an causing the acci

14.

Bot against respond driver of car N question resultin Singh and Jaswa

15.

Lea cannot be place admission of acc

16.

As well as injuries and PW-3 are Tribunal totally charges framed report of Surjan

urjan Singh died after reaching t I, Chandigarh on account of hi italized at Civil Hospital, Ambal arrival upon which police reac ured Baljinder Singh. During inv gligent and responsible for cau lice submitted report under sect nd the charge-sheet (Exh.P1) wa ident in question. th Jaswant Singh (PW2) and dent no.1 only and, therefore, No. PB-10-Y-0208 was held re ng into the death of Surjan Sing ant Singh. arned Tribunal dismissed the cla ed upon the depositions of PW cident by RW-1. discussed above, this Court fin to PW-2 and PW-3 and death o best witnesses, who are eye w ignored the statements of the w against respondents, mechanic Singh etc.

the hospital and Jaswant Singh w is serious condition and Baljin la City and a medical ruqa was s ched the hospital and recorded vestigation, drivers of both the c using the accident in question tion 173, Cr.P.C. (Exh.P2) agai as framed against both of them Baljinder Singh (PW3) depo Ramesh Kumar, respondent no esponsible for causing accident gh and bodily injuries to Baljin aim petition by stating that relia W-2 and PW-3 as well as alleg nds that the factum of accident of Surjan Singh are proved. PW witnesses as well and the learn witnesses, presenting of challan al reports of vehicles, postmort

was nder sent cars and inst for osed o.1, t in nder ance ged t as W-2 ned and

17.

On precedent, the a vitiated by a com

18.

Sin compensation, i was not decided

(i)

A working as a pri the prevailing f month in accord State of Haryana SETTLED LAW

19.

Ho Transport Corp down the law o are as under:- "30 per ind stan dec was dep

n the touchstone of hereinabov award dated 29.07.2006 passed b mplete absence of judicial applic nce issue No.2 i.e. If issue no if any, the petitioners are entitle d by the learned Tribunal, therefo perusal of the record reveals ivate contractor and earning Rs.1 facts of the present case, his in dance with the minimum wages p a. W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court in the poration and Another [(2009) 6 on assessment of compensation

¶0Though in some cases the rsonal and living expenses is dicated in Trilok Chandra, th ndardised deductions. Having cisions of this Court, we are of s married, the deduction toward e deceased, should be one-thir pendent family members is 2 t

ve discussed findings and judi by learned Tribunal, Ambala sta cation of mind. o.1 is proved, to what amount ed to and from which responden ore, this Court decides as follows that deceased Surjan Singh w 10000/- per month. However, un ncome is assessed as Rs.2000/- prescribed for skilled worker in case of Sarla Verma Vs. De 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], l and the relevant paras of the sa e deduction to be made towa calculated on the basis of un he general practice is to ap a considered several subsequ f the view that where the decea ds personal and living expenses rd (1/3rd) where the number to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where

cial ands t of nts? s:- was nder per elhi laid ame ards nits pply uent ased s of

num whe

¶31par bac exp mo get par to e and be con bec be only wou and of t as you

mber of dependent family memb ere the number of dependent fam Where the deceased was a ba rents, the deduction follows a chelors, normally, 50% is d penses, because it is assumed th re on himself. Even otherwise, tting married in a short time, in rent(s) and siblings is likely to b evidence to the contrary, the fath d will not be considered as a de considered as a dependant. In ntrary, brothers and sisters will cause they will either be indepe dependent on the father.

¶2Thus even if the deceased is ly d the mother would be consid uld be treated as the personal a d 50% as the contribution to the the bachelor is large and depend in a case where he has a wido unger non-earning sisters or b

bers is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5 mily members exceeds six. achelor and the claimants are different principle. In regard deducted as personal and liv hat a bachelor would tend to sp there is also the possibility of which event the contribution to be cut drastically. Further, subj her is likely to have his own inco ependant and the mother alone w In the absence of evidence to l not be considered as dependa endent and earning, or married, survived by parents and siblin dered to be a dependant, and 5 and living expenses of the bache e family. However, where the fam dent on the income of the deceas owed mother and large number brothers, his personal and liv

5th) d to ving end f his ject ome will nts, , or ngs, 50% elor mily sed, r of

exp wil *

¶42men Sus an 25 y to 3 for uni to 6

20.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

penses may be restricted to one-t ll be taken as two-third.

*

* We therefore hold that the m ntioned in Column (4) of the t samma Thomas³, Trilok Chandr operative multiplier of 18 (for th years), reduced by one unit for e 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 yea 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 4 its for every five years, that is, M 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer

third and contribution to the fam *

*

* multiplier to be used should be table above (prepared by apply ra and Charlie), which starts w he age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 every five years, that is M-17 for ars, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M 46 to 50 years, then reduced by M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. e of National Insurance Comp C 680] has clarified the law un ehicles Act, 1988, on the follow nd living expenses to determ nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation;

mily e as ying with 1 to r 26 M-14 two r 56 pany nder wing mine

(E) age The

) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen "52. As far as the conventi it difficult to agree with the granted Rs.25,000 towards towards loss of consortium care and guidance for minor of care and minor children d to Santosh Devi, it does n conventional and traditional determined on percentage b acceptable criterion. Unlike heads have to be quantified reasonable foundation. Ther that price index, fall in ba many a field have to be n oblivious to the same. Ther aspect. Otherwise, there determination of the same an there will be immense variat as a consequence of which, and courts are likely to be seemly to fix reasonable sum

egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:- ional heads are concerned, we f e view expressed in Rajesh². It s funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,0 and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss r children. The head relating to l does not exist. Though Rajesh ref not seem to follow the same. T l heads, needless to say, cannot basis because that would not be e determination of income, the s d. Any quantification must hav re can be no dispute over the f nk interest, escalation of rates noticed. The court cannot rem re has been a thumb rule in t will be extreme difficulty nd unless the thumb rule is appli tion lacking any kind of consiste the orders passed by the tribun e unguided. Therefore, we think ms. It seems to us that reasona

rent find has s of loss fers The t be e an said e a fact s in main this in ied, ncy nals k it

figures on conventional hea consortium and funeral Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 revisiting the said heads is revisit should not be fact-cen that it would be condign quantified should be enhan three years and the enhance in a span of three years. W that will bring in consistency *

*

59.3. While determining th actual salary to the incom prospects, where the deceas below the age of 40 years, sh be 30%, if the age of the dec In case the deceased was bet addition should be 15%. actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased salary, an addition of 40% o the warrant where the decea An addition of 25% where th 40 to 50 years and 10% wh

ads, namely, loss of estate, loss expenses should be Rs.15,0 respectively. The principle s an acceptable principle. But ntric or quantum-centric. We th that the amount that we h nced on percentage basis in ev ement should be at the rate of 1 We are disposed to hold so beca y in respect of those heads. *

*

* he income, an addition of 50% e of the deceased towards fut sed had a permanent job and w hould be made. The addition sho ceased was between 40 to 50 yea tween the age of 50 to 60 years, Actual salary should be read was self-employed (or) on a fix of the established income should ased was below the age of 40 yea he deceased was between the age here the deceased was between

s of 000, of hink ave very 0% ause % of ture was ould ars. d as xed d be ars.

¶21Insuranc Others [2 Pranay S paras of th

age of 50 to 60 years shou method of computation. Th income minus the tax compon

59.5. For determination of t personal and living expenses be guided by paras 30 to 3 reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multi Table in Sarla Verma¹ read w

59.7. The age of the decease the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on estate, loss of consortium a 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 1 amounts should be enhanced years." Hon'ble Supreme Court in ce Company Limited Vs. Na 2018(18) SCC 130] after consi Sethi (Supra) has settled the law he same are reproduced as under "21. A Constitution Bench o with the various heads und awarded in a death case.

uld be regarded as the necess he established income means nent. the multiplicand, the deduction s, the tribunals and the courts sh 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we h iplier shall be as indicated in with para 42 of that judgment. ed should be the basis for apply conventional heads, namely, loss and funeral expenses should be 15,000 respectively. The afores d at the rate of 10% in every th n the case of Magma Gene anu Ram alias Chuhru Ram dering Sarla Verma (supra) w regarding consortium. Relev r:- of this Court in Pranay Sethi² de der which compensation is to One of these heads is loss

sary for hall ave ying s of Rs said hree eral & and vant ealt be

consortium. In legal parlanc term which encompasses consortium", and "filial con would include the company solace and affection of the family. With respect to a relations with the deceased sp

21.1. Spousal consortium pertaining to the relationshi compensation to the surviv society, cooperation, affecti conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium premature death of a pa protection, affection, soc training".

21.3. Filial consortium i compensation in the case of accident leading to the death agony to the parents and fa agony for a parent is to los Children are valued for the and their role in the family u

ce, "consortium" is a compendi "spousal consortium", "paren nsortium". The right to consorti y, care, help, comfort, guidan deceased, which is a loss to spouse, it would include sex spouse. is generally defined as rig ip of a husband-wife which allo ving spouse for loss of "compa ion, and aid of the other in ev is granted to the child upon rent, for loss of "parental a ciety, discipline, guidance a is the right of the parents f an accidental death of a child. h of a child causes great shock a amily of the deceased. The grea se their child during their lifeti eir love, affection, companions unit.

ious ntal ium nce, his xual ghts ows any, very aid, and to An and test me.

¶22Consortium is a special about the status and worth jurisdictions world-over hav child's consortium far exc compensation awarded in th jurisdictions therefore pe compensation under loss of c The amount awarded to the of the love, affection, care a child.

¶23The Motor Vehicles Act providing relief to the vict genuine claims. In case wh child, or unmarried son or d be awarded loss of conso consortium. Parental conso lose their parents in motor few High Courts have awa However, there was no clari which compensation could consortium.

¶24The amount of compensa will be governed by the pri under "loss of consortium" a

l prism reflecting changing nor h of actual relationships. Mod ve recognised that the value of ceeds the economic value of e case of the death of a child. M ermit parents to be award consortium on the death of a ch parents is a compensation for l and companionship of the decea is a beneficial legislation aimed ims or their families, in cases here a parent has lost their mi daughter, the parents are entitled ortium under the head of fi rtium is awarded to children w vehicle accidents under the Act arded compensation on this cou ity with respect to the principles d be awarded on loss of fi ation to be awarded as consorti inciples of awarding compensat as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In

rms dern of a Most ded hild. loss ased d at s of inor d to ilial who t. A unt. s on ilial ium

CONCLUSION

22.

In above referred claimants are en Sr. No. M F D ex

4. T M A L F L P

T

23.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour 9% per annum o of its realization

present case, we deem it ap the sister of the deceased, an of filial consortium. N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present ap ntitled to compensation as per the Heads Monthly Income uture prospects @ 25% Deduction towards pers xpenditure Total Income Multiplier Annual Dependency Loss of Estate uneral Expenses Loss of Consortium arental : Rs.48,000/-x4 Total Compensation far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State rt Cases 107, the appellants-cla on the amount from the date of n.

ppropriate to award the father a n amount of Rs 40,000 each for l the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ppeal is allowed. The appellan e calculations made here-under:- Compensation Awarded Rs.2000/- Rs.500/- (25% of 2000) sonal Rs.625/- [1/4 of (2000+50 Rs.1875/- (2500-625) Rs.3,15,000/- (Rs.1875/- x 12 x 14) Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.1,92,000/- Rs.5,43,000/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 aimants are granted the interest filing of claim petition till the d

and loss nts- - d 0)] eme 2) 5 t @

24.

The compensation al from today. T compensation a equal share. Th detail to the Trib

25.

Dis

26.

Pen

05.09.2024 A.Kaundal

Whethe

Whethe

e Insurance Company is dire long with interest with the Tribu The Tribunal is further direc along with interest in the acco he claimants/appellants are dire bunal. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

ected to deposit the amount unal within a period of two mon cted to disburse the amount ount of the claimants/appellants ected to furnish the bank acco tand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

of nths of s in