Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 59 (UTT)

Niaz Mohd. And Ors. v. Sunder Mani Bhatt

2004-05-18

P.C.VERMA, R.TANDON

body2004
JUDGMENT P.C. Verma, A.C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 23.12.198S passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal in M.A.C. No. 40 of 1986, Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v. Sundermani Bhatt and Anr. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants filed a petition under Section 166 pf the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal for grant of award of compensation due to the death of Smt. Pyaran in a motor vehicle accident at 9.00 a.m. on 3.1.1986 at Geoli, District Tehri Garhwal. The petitioners have stated that the deceased was boarded on Bus No. USQ 843 on 3.1.1986 at 8.00 a.m. at Anjanisain. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently. When it reached near Geoli at about 9.00 a.m., it fell down in a Khad. The driver of the bus and Smt. Pyaran succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. The petitioners have claimed that they are the dependents of deceased Pyaran who was earning Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,35,500/- against the respondents. 4. The respondents have contested the case and have filed their respective written statements. Respondent No. 1 has pleaded that the deceased was not earning anything and the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving. The amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. Respondent No. 3 has pleaded that the accident was not occurred due to debris on the road but it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 5. Oh the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. USQ 843 by its driver due to which Smt. Pyaran sustained injuries and died? (2) Whether the slip on the road was not removed by the P.W.D. Department of State of U.P. responsible for repairs of road due to which the road became narrow and it also partly contributed towards the accident? If so, whether the O.P. No. 3 is also liable on this ground? (3) Whether the compensation claimed is excessive? (4) Whether the road was cleared by the O.P. No. 3 as alleged in paras 10 to 12 of its W.S.? If so, whether the O.P. No. 3 is also liable on this ground? (3) Whether the compensation claimed is excessive? (4) Whether the road was cleared by the O.P. No. 3 as alleged in paras 10 to 12 of its W.S.? (5) To what relief, if any, are the claimants entitled? 6. The learned Tribunal in reply to Issue Nos. 1,2 and 4 has concluded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. The accident did not take place due to debris collected on the road and that the State of U.P. is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners on the alleged ground. 7. While deciding issue Nos. 3 and 5 the learned Tribunal has held that the value of services of the deceased can be assessed to Rs. 125/- per month or Rs. 1,500/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 14 the total compensation comes to Rs. 21,000/-. The claimants have already received Rs. 10,000/- towards the passenger insurance and Rs. 15,000/ for no fault liability and, therefore, dismissed the claim of the petitioners for any further amount. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 9. So far as the question of cause of accident is concerned the Tribunal has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle question. Such findings of the learned Tribunal are based on the evidence on cord and the learned Tribunal has given detailed reasons for his conclusion. We find no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the point of cause of the accident. 10. The grievance of the appellant is with regard to the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. The age of the deceased at the time of her death was 36 years. She was a house lady and was looking after her children and also was doing agriculture and animal husbandry. Her husband was at Saudi Arabia and used to come to his home once in a year. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per month. Whereas the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning nothing and a sum of Rs. Her husband was at Saudi Arabia and used to come to his home once in a year. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per month. Whereas the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning nothing and a sum of Rs. 125/- per month was assessed towards the service rendered by her to her family. 11. In our opinion the amount assessed by the Tribunal towards the service of the deceased is too meagre. Sri Niaj Mohammad, husband of the deceased, has deposed on oath that he is working in Saudi Arabia and comes to his home once in a year only. Meaning thereby the entire household affairs were being looked after by the deceased. She was maintaining her children, doing agriculture and was also doing animal husbandry. The contribution of a lady towards the household affairs of the family cannot be assessed with a narrow mind. We are not in consonance with the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding assessment of the value of her services for her family only for Rs. 125/- per month. This amount should be assessed for Rs. 400/- per month or Rs. 4,800/- per annum. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 36 years thus a multiplier of 14 would be just and proper. After multiplying the said amount with 14 the net pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 67,200/-. Some compensation should also be awarded to the petitioner No. 1 husband of the deceased for loss of consortium and to her children for loss of love and affection. In our opinion a lumpsum amount of Rs. 35,000/- on all these accounts would meet the ends of justice. Thus the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 1,02,200/- as compensation against the respondent No. 2 the New India Assurance Co. 12. The appeal is allowed,. The appellants are awarded a sum of Rs. 1,02,200/- (Rs. one lakh two thousand two hundred) as compensation against respondent No. 2, the New India Assurance Company along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The costs is made easy.