Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 112 (JK)

Union Of India v. Shaha (Mst. )

2005-04-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2005
1. It seems that respondents have presented a claim petition titled Mst Shaha and others v. Union of India and another before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Pulwama, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal, whereby appellants have assailed the award/judgment dated 28th of May 2002 passed by Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Pulwama. 2. Backdrops of the case is that respondents have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,30000/- against the appellants/respondents on the ground that on 3rd of January 1994, Muma Bhat deceased became the victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by respondent No.2, while driving vehicle of the respondent No.1 rashly and negligently at Awantipora National High way. 3. That the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded rupees two lacs in favour of the respondents/ claimants and saddled the liability with the appellants. Feeling aggrieved of the said award the appellants have assailed the said award by the medium of this appeal, on the grounds which can be precisely and aptly enumerated as under: i) That the award has been passed without considering the written statement of the appellants; ii) That Motor Accident Claims Tribunal presumed age of the deceased sixty years at the time of death and applied the multiplier wrongly. Heard. Ld. Counsel for the appellants projected the following two points; i) The Tribunal cannot presume the age of the deceased.It was the duty of the claimants/respondents herein to prove that what was the age of the deceased. ii) Even assuming that the age of the deceased was sixty years at the relevant time even then the multiplier five should have been applied instead of multiplier eight. 4. Mr Dar while rebutting the arguments, argued that the just compensation has been awarded . The Tribunal has to pass just compensation and in order to arrive at a just conclusion the Tribunal can adopt any method. The compliance of the strict rules of Evidence Act is not required . 5. Considered. Before dwelling upon the points projected, it is proper to notice that what is the aim and object of granting compensation. 6. The aim and object of the legislation is to provide compensation to the victims of the vehicular accident as early as possible in order to save the victims from, social evils, starvation, destitution and victimization. 5. Considered. Before dwelling upon the points projected, it is proper to notice that what is the aim and object of granting compensation. 6. The aim and object of the legislation is to provide compensation to the victims of the vehicular accident as early as possible in order to save the victims from, social evils, starvation, destitution and victimization. The purpose of the legislation is aimed at, to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims of the vehicular accident. 7. In order to achieve the said purpose the technicalities and mystic may be™s, have no role to play. The Tribunal should not succumb to the technicalities but must follow the procedure which is fair in order to take the claim petition to its logical conclusion. 8. The Tribunal may adopt any procedure which it deems fit in the given circumstances of the case and in terms of the mandate of section-166 of Motor Vehicles Act , particularly chapter 10,11and 12 of Motor Vehicles Act, while keeping in view the principles of natural justice and aim and object of the granting of the compensation. 9. Keeping in view the said discussion the question emerges whether the Ld. Presiding Officer has passed the award rightly or wrongly? 10. The claimants/respondents have pleaded in the claim petition that age of the deceased was 45 years on 31st of January 1994. The photostate copy of Medical certificate of the cause of death of the deceased which appears to have been issued by Sheri Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Soura Srinagar is on the record. The certificate gives the age of the deceased as 65 years. In form ˜Mazrobi™ the age of the deceased has been shown approximately 68 years, the certified copy of which is on the record. 11. The respondent No.1 Mst Shaha widow ,Bashir Ahmad Bhat (son) and witness Abdul Rashid Dar have stated in their statements that age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of death . 12. In the given circumstances how the Presiding Officer has taken the age as 60 years. It was duty of the claimants that they should have proved the age of the deceased. The claimants/respondents have led evidence. The witnesses have deposed that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the relevant time. 13. The appellants herein have not led any evidence in rebuttle. It was duty of the claimants that they should have proved the age of the deceased. The claimants/respondents have led evidence. The witnesses have deposed that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the relevant time. 13. The appellants herein have not led any evidence in rebuttle. Thus the Tribunal has to arrive at a just conclusion, that what would have been the age of the deceased in the given circumstances . No doubt the Tribunal should not have drawn the presumption but should have given a definite finding after scanning the entire evidence. 14. In the claim petition the age of the deceased has been shown 45 years, and the age of the eldest son of the deceased has been given as 40 years.Thus the age of deceased has not been given correctly in the claim petition. 15. In the given circumstances , the court can draw conclusion while keeping in view the age given in the death certificate issued by SKIMS and ˜form Mazrobi™,that the age of the deceased would not have been more than 65 years at the time of accident. 16. Now the question which needs answer is whether the multiplier has been right applied? The multiplier- 8 has been applied by the Tribunal by presuming age of the deceased as 60 years. Remanding the case on this trivial issue, would amount to defeating the aim and object of the Act. 17. Keeping all things in view and the age of the claimants as given in claim petition and the table given in the second schedule multiplier-5 is appropriate and just multiplier applicable in the given circumstances of the case. 18. The income of the deceased is not disputed. Viewed thus the appeal merits to be accepted partly. 19. In the given circumstances the claimants are entitled to compensation 2000 x 12 x 5 = 1,20,000/- with nine percent interest from the date of institution of the claim petition, till it is finally paid to the claimant minus the interim compensation amount if received. Rupees three thousand awarded as funeral expenses and five thousand as loss of consortium is upheld. 20. The claimants are also entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. Viewed thus the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified in terms of judgment. Sent down the record.