- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Nirmala Puri v. Gurmel Singh
Judgment Summary — R.L. Anand, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This summary is drawn exclusively from the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.
The claimants — Smt. Nirmala Puri, Ashok Kumar Puri, Krishan Kumar Puri and Rajiv Puri — filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 seeking Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation for the death of Shri Roshan Lal Puri in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2 April 1981 at Patiala. The petition named the driver Gurmel Singh and the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) as respondents. The factual allegations were that the deceased, riding a bicycle on Mall Road, was struck when bus No. PBP-3573 (belonging to PRTC and driven by Gurmel Singh) crossed to the wrong side and crushed the bicycle; several persons (including Constables Ishar Singh and Mastan Singh, Mrs. Kiran Saxena and Yog Ram Architect) were said to have witnessed the accident. FIR No. 98 dated 2 April 1981 was registered.
The respondents contested the petition, denying negligence by bus No. PBP-3573 and asserting an alternative account in which another bus in front moved and the cyclist struck that bus after failing to heed a red light. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues (set out in the opinion) and after evidence decided issue No. 1 (causation/neglect) against the claimants and issue No. 2 (quantum) in the claimants' favour (dependency computed at Rs. 54,000), ultimately dismissing the petition because of the finding on issue No. 1.
The claimants appealed (F.A.O. No. 384 of 1983). The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 9 October 1986, set aside the Tribunal's award, partly allowed the petition and awarded Rs. 75,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing; the Single Judge held the driver and owner jointly and severally liable. The Single Judge relied on a Full Bench decision cited as Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (the opinion includes two year citations for that Full Bench decision in different paragraphs).
The present proceedings dispose of L.P.A. No. 21 of 1987 (Smt. Nirmala Puri v. Gurmel Singh) and L.P.A. No. 13 of 1987 filed by PRTC as cross-objections against the Single Judge's judgment of 9 October 1986.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Roshan Lal Puri died on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 2.4.1981 due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. PBP-3573 owned by PRTC and driven by Gurmel Singh? (This is quoted from the issues framed by the Tribunal.)
- If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the applicants entitled and from whom? (Quoted from the Tribunal's issues.)
- What relief should be granted? (Quoted from the Tribunal's issues.)
- Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in setting aside the Tribunal's finding on causation and in assessing and awarding compensation at Rs. 75,000 (with interest) — including the appropriateness of the multiplier and annual dependency applied?
- Whether the cross-objections of the PRTC are maintainable — specifically, whether an alleged written statement by Smt. Nirmala (that she did not want to institute proceedings against the driver or conductor) should operate to negate negligence attributed to the driver or bar the claim?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Smt. Nirmala Puri) — Principal contentions on appeal
- The deceased was an Inspector drawing Rs. 1,100 per month; after personal expenses, the dependency should be assessed at not less than Rs. 9,000 per year.
- The appropriate multiplier in this case should have been 12 (not 10), and therefore overall compensation ought to have been at least Rs. 90,000.
- The widow was about 47 years old at the time of death and the deceased was likely to receive promotions, making a larger award appropriate.
Respondents / PRTC — Principal contentions and defenses
- The driver and owner filed separate written statements denying negligence by bus No. PBP-3573, asserting that another bus ahead had moved and the cyclist struck that bus after failing to heed the traffic light; bus No. PBP-3573 never struck the cyclist.
- PRTC's cross-objections contended that Smt. Nirmala had made a categorical written statement that she did not want to institute legal proceedings against the driver and conductor, and from that the Corporation argued she did not attribute negligence to Gurmel Singh and the cross-objections sought dismissal of the claim.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (Full Bench) — cited in the opinion (see paragraphs noting 1975 PLR 1 and 1979 PLR 1). | Principles for assessing compensation in fatal motor-accident cases — in particular principles guiding assessment of annual dependency and choice of multiplier. | The Single Judge relied on the Full Bench principles in assessing annual dependency at Rs. 7,500 and applying a multiplier of 10 to arrive at a compensation figure of Rs. 75,000; the appellate court affirmed the application of those principles and the resulting computation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two main parts: (A) consideration of the appellant's challenge to the quantum; and (B) consideration of the PRTC's cross-objections.
A. Analysis of the appellant's challenge to quantum
- The court examined the relevant facts found on record: deceased's age (about 54 years), employment (Inspector, Wireless Traffic, Railways), and emoluments (about Rs. 1,100 per month).
- The court accepted that the deceased had personal expenses (estimated at Rs. 400–500 per month) and that he would have continued in service until about age 58 and thereafter would have drawn pension (a witness stated pension would be Rs. 669 per month; the court rounded that to Rs. 664/700 in calculations).
- Only the widow (claimant No. 1) was a dependent; the other claimants were major sons, and the court reiterated the settled principle that compensation is not awarded for loss of love and affection to adult dependents.
- On the basis of these material facts, the court computed dependency as the Single Judge had: annual dependency assessed at Rs. 7,500 and application of a multiplier of 10, producing Rs. 75,000 as the compensation payable. The court reproduced and approved the Single Judge's reasoning and calculation.
- The court rejected the appellant's submission for a higher annual dependency (Rs. 9,000) and a higher multiplier (12), explaining that the evidence supported the Single Judge's figures and projections (initial four-year dependency estimate and subsequent pension-based dependency for remaining years), and therefore the appellant's claims for enhanced compensation were devoid of merit.
B. Analysis of the PRTC's cross-objections
- PRTC argued that a written statement by Smt. Nirmala that she did not want to institute proceedings against the driver/conductor should be taken to mean she did not attribute negligence to the driver, and thus the award should be set aside.
- The court observed that the statute (Motor Vehicles law) vests an independent right in legal representatives/dependents to claim compensation and that vicarious liability of the owner arises on proving negligence of the driver.
- The court noted that Smt. Nirmala was not an eyewitness, rendering her alleged written statement of limited evidentiary value; the Single Judge had found negligence by Gurmel Singh and found his plea false.
- The court recognized that an admission is evidence but also that the alleged maker can demonstrate the admission was erroneous or retract it. On the record, the alleged statement could at most be treated as an admission that had been successfully retracted, and there was insufficient evidentiary basis to treat it as barring the claim.
- In light of the above, the court concluded that the cross-objections lacked merit and were apparently filed merely for the sake of objection; the Single Judge's findings were not vitiated by legal infirmity.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 9 October 1986 of the learned Single Judge. The appeal by Smt. Nirmala Puri seeking further enhancement was dismissed, and the cross-objections of the PRTC were likewise dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The opinion concludes with the order:
Appeal dismissed.
Direct implications for the parties:
- The award of Rs. 75,000 in favour of the claimants (with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment) as assessed by the Single Judge stands affirmed.
- The driver (Gurmel Singh) and the owner (PRTC) remain jointly and severally liable for payment of the award as ordered by the Single Judge and affirmed by this court.
- The cross-objections by PRTC alleging that an alleged written statement by the widow precludes recovery were rejected; the court held that such a statement, in context, did not bind the legal representatives and did not negate the Single Judge's finding of negligence.
The opinion does not state that it establishes any new precedent beyond affirming the Single Judge's application of established Full Bench principles (Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur) for computation of compensation; accordingly, the practical consequence is limited to affirming the monetary award and liabilities between the parties named in the case.
R.L Anand, J.:— By this judgment we dispose of L.P.A No. 21 of 1987 titled Smt. Nirmala Puri… v. Gurmel Singh…. 13 of 1987 filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘PRTC’) as the L.P.A and the cross objections have arisen from the judgment dated 9.10.1986 passed by the learned Single Judge in F.A.O No. 384 of 1983.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Nirmal Puri, Ashok Kumar Puri, Krishan Kumar Puri and Rajiv Puri filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against Gurmel Singh Driver and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its General Manager, and claim compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of Shri Roshan Lal Puri, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 2nd April, 1981 at Patiala. It was alleged by the claimants before the Tribunal that on 2nd April, 1981 at about 10.45 A.M the deceased Roshan Lal Puri was going on a bicycle and was going on the Mall Road, Patiala, from the side of District Courts towards the side of Fawara Chowk and when the deceased had just crossed the Mandir of Kali Devi and was proceeding on the correct side of the road, bus No. PBP-3573 belonging to the PRTC appeared there and it was being driven rashly and negligently by Shri Gurmel Singh respondent. The bus came from the side of Chowk Fawara. The driver did not slow down the vehicle and while crossing the chowk in front of the building of the State Bank of Patiala, he lost control of the vehicle and brought the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and hit the bicycle of the deceased, which was crushed under the right wheel of the bus, as a result of which Roshan Lal Puri deceased was thrown on the road and he thereby sustained serious injuries on the head and other parts of his body. Later on these injuries became fatal after a few hours. According to the claimants, the accident was witnessed by Constables Ishar Singh and Mastan Singh of Division No. 4, Patiala, Mrs. Kiran Saxena and Yog Ram Architect. After causing the accident, the driver fled away from the place of accident by leaving the bus at the spot. F.I.R No. 98 dated 2nd April, 1981 was registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. It was alleged by the claimants that the deceased was born on 11th February, 1927 and was about 54 years of age, and was earning Rs. 1100/- per month as he was employed as Inspector Wireless Traffic, Northern Railway, Amritsar. With the above averments, the claim petition for the award of Rs. 1,50,000/- was filed.
3. The claim petition was contested by the driver and the owner of the vehicle, who filed separate written statements and denied the allegations. It was pleaded by the respondents that another bus standing on the Mall Road near the crossing of State Bank of Patiala because of the red light at the said crossing and when bus No. PBP-3573 approached the said crossing, the bus which was standing in front, moved forward and the cyclist, who was proceeding from Baradari towards Sheranwala Gate side did not heed to die traffic light, which was red for him, with the result he struck against the said bus, which was in front of bus No. PBP-3573 and thereafter the driver of that bus fled as a crowd had collected and immediately Gurmel Singh, respondent No. 1, stopped his bus on humanitarian grounds, was instead implicated in case F.I.R No. 98 under Section 304-A, I.P.C The respondents stated in their written statements that bus No. PBP-3573 never struck against the cyclist.
4. With the above pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:—
“1. Whether Roshan Lal Puri deceased died on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 2.4.1981 due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. PBP-3573 owned by P.R.T.C respondent No. 2, and driven by Gurmel Singh, respondent No. 1? OPA.
2. It issues No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and from whom? OPA.
3. Relief.”
5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. On the conclusion of the proceedings the learned Tribunal vide award dated 28th February, 1983 decided issue No. 1 against the claimants and in favour of the respondents. Issue No. 2 was, however, decided in favour of the claimants and the dependency of the claimants was calculated to Rs. 54,000/-. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No. 1, the petition of the claimants was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants filed F.A.O No. 384 of 1983 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 9th October, 1986 by the learned Single Judge, who set aside the award of the Tribunal and partly allowed the petition and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. It was further ordered by the learned Single Judge that the driver and the owner of the bus shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation. The learned Single Judge relied upon a Full Bench judgment reported as Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1975 PLR 1 and the annual dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 7,500/- and by applying the multiplier of 10, the compensation amounting to Rs. 75,000/- was assessed.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the claimants have filed the L.P.A and have claimed further/enhanced compensation while the P.R.T.C has prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition in its entirety as earlier ordered by the Tribunal.
8. We have gone through the impugned judgment and first of all we would like to deal with the appeal of Smt. Nirmala Puri. The case set up by the appellant is that Shri Roshan Lal Puri was Inspector and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1100/- per month. After deducting his personal expenses, the dependency of the claimants should not be calculated less than Rs. 9,000/- per year and in this case the suitable multiplier should be of 12 years instead of 10 years. It is further pleaded by the appellant that she was hardly 47 years of age at the time of the death of her husband and keeping in view all the attending circumstances and specially the fact that the deceased was to earn promotion with the passage of time, the learned Single Judge ought to have panted not less than Rs. 90,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants.
9. In our considered opinion the submissions raised by appellant Smt. Nirmala in her appeal are devoid of any merit. Roshan Lal Puri deceased was aged about 54 years at the time of his death. His total emoluments at the relevant time were Rs. 1100/- per month. The deceased was the earning member of the family and in order to keep his appearance in the public, he would be spending at least Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- on his personal expenses. The deceased would have served in the Department upto the age of 58 years and thereafter he would have earned pension. To this extent also, there is a statement of the witness that after retirement the deceased would have earned a pension of Rs. 669/- per month. Claimants Nos. 2 to 4 were majors and in these circumstances, the dependency, if any, was only or claimant No. 1. It is a settled principle of law that no compensation can be awarded to a dependent for the loss of love and affection. For the first four years, the dependency of claimant No. 1 could not be more than Rs. 28,800/-; say Rs. 30,000/-. Keeping in view the span of life of a male person in this region, the deceased might have survived upto the age of 70 years. The possible income of the deceased after his retirement was Rs. 664/- per month; say Rs. 700/-. In these circumstances the dependency of the widow for the next 12 years in no way could exceed Rs. 45,000/-. This aspect of the case has been rightly taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and we would like to reproduce the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge as follows:—
“Next to consider is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. The evidence on record shows that Roshan Lal Puri deceased was about 54 years of age at the time of his death. He was posted as Inspector, Wireless Traffic in the Railways and his total emoluments were almost Rs. 1100/- per month. It has also come on record that after his retirement, he would have earned a pension of Rs. 664/- per month. The deceased died leaving behind his 47 years' old widow and their three major sons. The only dependent, in this case was really his widow.
The compensation payable to the claimants has to be assessed in view of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 PLR 1. Considering the circumstances of the claimant and the deceased, in the light thereof, it would be appropriate to apply a multiplier of “10” in the present case and to assess the dependency at Rs. 7500/- per annum. So computed the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 75,000/-.
The widow-Nirmala Puri is accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy-five thousand only) as compensation, which she shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.”
10. Resultantly, we affirm the finding of the learned Single Judge when he awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- to the claimants along with interest.
11. Reverting to the cross-objections of the PRTC, we are again of the view that these objections have been filed for the sake of objections only as these lack any merit. It is stated in the objections that Smt. Nirmala had made a categorical statement in her application that she did not want to institute legal proceedings against the driver and the conductor of the bus in question and from the statement it should be inferred that she did not attribute any negligence so far as Gurmel Singh driver is concerned. The ground taken up by the Corporation in the cross-objections has no merit at all. The statute has conferred right upon the claimants of the deceased to claim compensation. On proving the negligence on the part of the driver, the owner has been made vicariously liable. It is the common case of the parties that Smt. Nirmala Puri was not the eye-witness of the accident and in these circumstances her statement in the shape of writing is meaningless. The learned Single Judge has categorically held in the judgment that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of Gurmel Singh. His plea was found to be false. It will be highly unlikely that the dependents of the deceased would try to implicate a wrong person and would try to fasten the liability on Gurmel Singh or upon the Corporation. There is hardly any evidence on the record from which it can be inferred that Gurmel Singh at the first point of time had given a story different than the one as given by the claimants in the claim petition. The alleged statement, if any, made by Smt. Nirmala Puri at the most can be treated as her admission, which had been successfully retracted. So far as the position of law is concerned, admission is the best evidence, upon which the opposite party can rely, but with one exception that the alleged maker of the statement can successfully show that it is erroneous. We have already held above that Smt. Nirmala Devi was not the eyewitness of this accident. If she has stated in the application that she did not want to institute legal proceedings against the driver or the conductor, her that statement does not bind her nor the other legal representatives who have independent right of claiming compensation.
12. Resultantly, we do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 9th October, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge and affirm the same. Consequently, we do not find any merit either in the appeal or in the cross-objections, which are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert