Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 190 (UTT)

Ashwani Kumar v. New India Assurance Co.

2007-04-17

RAJESH TANDON

body2007
JUDGMENT Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Shri Pramod Belwal, counsel for the appellant and Shri T.A. Khan, counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant praying for modification by enhancement of compensation granted by the Judgment and order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest of 9 % has been awarded. 3. Briefly stated, according to the claimant, he was traveling in a jeep no. U.P. 09-0418 which was being driven rashly and negligently and as soon as it reached 2 Kms. near Village Deb Nagar at about 7.15 a.m., the driver of the jeep lost control over the vehicle and as a result of which jeep fell in a khud resulting into the severe injuries to the claimants. The F.I.R. of this incident was lodged at P.S. Chamba and as the petitioner sustained injuries all over the body he was rushed to Christian Hospital, Chamba. It has been stated by the claimant that he became disabled and has been under continuous treatment of the doctors. The claimant was aged about 41 years at the time of accident and he was working as an Accountant with M/s Ashwani Kumar and was getting Rs. 5,529/- per month as salary. It has also been stated that the claimant has spent Rs. 2,50,000/- for his medical treatment. 4. The New India Insurance Company has filed the written statement denying the allegations of the claimant. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 14.7.1997 at about 7.15 A.M. near village Deb Nagar before 3 Kms. From Nagni Village, District Tehri due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. U.P. 09-0418 by its driver causing injuries and disablement to the claimant Ashwani Kumar? 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to get and from which of the O.P.s? 6. So far as the issue no.1 is concerned, a finding was recorded that the claimant has received the injuries. The F.I.R. of the incident has been lodged on the same day which reveals the manner of the accident and clearly shows that the injured was traveling in jeep no. 6. So far as the issue no.1 is concerned, a finding was recorded that the claimant has received the injuries. The F.I.R. of the incident has been lodged on the same day which reveals the manner of the accident and clearly shows that the injured was traveling in jeep no. U.P. 09-0418 and the same met with an accident and the injured received injuries in that accident. 7. So far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, a finding has been recorded on the basis of the notional income to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and out of this income, i/3rd i.e. Rs. 5,000/- has been deducted. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2006 (2) U.D. 665 Smt. Godavari Devi and Ors. v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. where the notional income has been recomputed to be Rs. 30,000/- and after the deduction to the extent of 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 10,000/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below: 13. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 30,000/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the annual income of the claimant has to be assessed to Rs. 30,000/- and after deduction of 1/3rd of this i.e. Rs. 10,000/- the amount comes to Rs. 20,000/- as annual income for granting the compensation to the claimant. 9. So far as the finding on issue number 1 is concerned, the same is confirmed. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been awarded towards the medical expenses. The same has not been challenged. 10. So far as issue no. 2 regarding computation of compensation is concerned, the case is remanded to the Claims Tribunal for a fresh assessment of compensation in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law within a period of three months after the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs.