Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1051 (HP)

ROSHAN LAL v. SADHU RAM

2009-11-13

SANJAY KAROL

body2009
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral)-This is the claimants appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award dated 5.8.2004 in M.A.C. Petition No.119-MAC/2 of 2003, titled as Roshan Lal & Ors. vs. Sadhu Ram & Ors. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present controversy are as under. 3. The impugned award has been passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act by the successors-in interest of late Smt. Kesho Devi. The Tribunal held that Smt. Kesho Devi, aged 45 years, died in an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor No. HP-17-4734 by Shri Rajinder Singh. The accident took place on 23.10.2003. The Tribunal held the claimants to be dependants upon the deceased. Claimant No.3 is a minor. The vehicle in question was insured with M/s. National Insurance Company and in the absence of any proof of violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the compensation to the claimants. While determining the compensation payable to the claimants, the monthly income of the deceased for the purposes of dependency was assessed to be Rs.500/-. Multiplier of 14 was applied and thus a sum of Rs.84,000/-was determined as compensation on account of loss of income. A sum of Rs.10,000/- each was awarded towards funeral charges and loss of consortium. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,04,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition upto payment was awarded. 4. The insurer, the owner and the driver of the vehicle have accepted the award. 5. That the claimants herein are dependents is not in dispute. Through the statements of Shri Roshan Lal (PW-1) and Smt. Surinder Kaur (PW-2), an attempt has been made by the claimants to prove that the deceased in fact was doing house hold work at various places and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove this fact. Though it cannot be disputed that the deceased was working. Even though it cannot be conclusively held that the deceased was having an income of more than Rs.3,000/- but however, some guess work is required to be carried out while determining the compensation. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove this fact. Though it cannot be disputed that the deceased was working. Even though it cannot be conclusively held that the deceased was having an income of more than Rs.3,000/- but however, some guess work is required to be carried out while determining the compensation. The accident took place in the year 2003 and even the daily wages paid to a labourer was more than the amount which stands determined by the Tribunal. 6. The Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 197, has taken the income of a housewife to be Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum. It is true that this Court while deciding FAO No. 28/1995 titled as Leela Devi & Anr. Vs. Narinder Pal Singh & Ors., on 31.12.2004 has held that Lata Wadhwa’s case pertained to the ladies coming from a higher strata of society but however, one cannot loose sight of the fact that the accident in Lata Wadhwa’s case took place in the year 1989. Since then there has been an over all increase in inflation and consequently I am of the considered view that the sum as fixed by the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa’s case would be just, fair and reasonable for determining the annual income of the deceased. Hence, the income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the compensation is taken to be Rs.36,000/- per annum. I am taking this view more so for the reason that it has come on record that the deceased was actually working. 7. The question however, which needs to be considered is as to what is the amount which needs to be deducted for determining the loss of income to the dependants. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, has held that where the deceased was married having 4 to 6 family members as dependants, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth. In the instant case, there are five claimants. Another married legal heir of the deceased is not claimant before the Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances deduction of the annual income has to be to the extent of one-fourth. 8. Mr. In the instant case, there are five claimants. Another married legal heir of the deceased is not claimant before the Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances deduction of the annual income has to be to the extent of one-fourth. 8. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer is right in contending that considering the age of the deceased to be between 45 to 50 years, multiplier of 14 as applied by the Tribunal, needs to be reduced to 13. This also is the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). 9. The claimants thus are entitled to a sum of Rs.36,000/- minus 1/4th = Rs.27,000/- x 13 = Rs.3,51,000/-. Other amounts awarded by the Tribunal shall remain as it is. 10. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Interest on the enhanced amount shall be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Thakur states that the interest as also the enhanced amount shall be deposited within eight weeks. 11. The appeal is disposed of.