Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 82 (UTT)

KAMALA KUMARI v. SUNIL KUMAR

2004-06-02

M.M.GHILDIYAL, RAJESH TANDON

body2004
RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 24. 2. 1996 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, for the grant of compensation due to the death of Kuldip Singh. The deceased was working in Tehri Hydro Development corporation and was getting a salary of rs. 2,270 per month. The petitioners were the father and mother of the deceased. It appears that Veer Singh, father of the deceased, died during the pendency of the petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have stated that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 5. 12. 1992 at 3. 30 p. m. at Barethi Chungi chowki, Uttarkashi involving Marutivan no. UP 08-669. It has been alleged by the petitioners that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question. Deceased was unmarried. ( 4 ) OPPOSITE parties have contested the petition and have filed their respective written statements. They have admitted the accident and death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident but denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: (1) Whether vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the vehicle? If so, its effect? (2) Whether the deceased was earning rs. 2,200 per month and contributing rs. 1,500 per month to the family? If so its effect? (3) Whether the amount of claim is exorbitant and excessive? If so, its effect? (4) Whether the employment of the deceased was of temporary nature as alleged in para 12 of written statement? if so, its effect? (5) To what relief if any, are the petitioners entitled? ( 6 ) THE learned Claims Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioners and has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question. In reply to issue nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 the learned Tribunal has held that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 2,270 per month. He held that the dependency of petitioners on the deceased was for Rs. In reply to issue nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 the learned Tribunal has held that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 2,270 per month. He held that the dependency of petitioners on the deceased was for Rs. 1,500 per month and granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. ( 7 ) IT appears that during pendency of the petition, petitioner Veer Singh died and kamala Kumari filed the present appeal. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire evidence on record. ( 9 ) THE main contention of the appellant is that learned Tribunal has not properly calculated the amount of compensation and the amount awarded, as compensation is too meagre. ( 10 ) THE petitioners have contended that the deceased was working in Tehri Hydro development Corporation and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,270 per month. Kamala kumari, PW 1, has stated on oath that the deceased was giving Rs. 1,500 per month to her for family expenses. The claimants have filed payslip of the deceased which shows that he was getting Rs. 2,270 per month as salary. After deducting one-third of the said income for own expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive the dependency of the appellant on the income of deceased comes to Rs. 1,500 per month or Rs. 18,000 per annum. At the time of his death the deceased was 25 years of age. The claimant-appellant is the mother of the deceased and was 46 years old at the time of filing of the claim petition. Another claimant Veer Singh, who was the father of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition. In the circumstances of present case multiplier considering the age of the deceased cannot be applied for calculating the compensation. To get a right multiplier the age of the claimant should be considered in this case. At the time of death of the deceased, claimant Kamala kumari was 46 years of age. Considering the average age in the country as 60 years, it can be presumed that the deceased would pay maintenance to the claimant for further 12 years. Thus by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000 by 12 the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,16,000. Considering the average age in the country as 60 years, it can be presumed that the deceased would pay maintenance to the claimant for further 12 years. Thus by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000 by 12 the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,16,000. ( 11 ) THE findings of learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving have not been challenged by either of the parties in the appeal. ( 12 ) APPEAL is allowed with costs. Appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 2,16,000 (Rs. two lakh sixteen thousand only) along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .