Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 80 (JK)

State Road Transport Corp. , J&K v. Farid Hussain

2009-02-25

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. Appellant has challenged award dated 10th November, 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Udhampur in Claim Petition no. 63/Claim, titled Farid Hussain & another versus Mohd. Rafiq & Others, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Respondent nos. 1 & 2, being the victim of the vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udhampur for grant of compensation on the ground that their father namely Abdul Majid, who was traveling in the vehicle/goods carrier truck bearing no. 336/JKZ, which was being driven by Mohd. Rafiq, driver, rashly and negligently met with an accident near Marothi on Sudh Mahadev Dudu Road on 21.01.1988 and lost his life in the said accident. 3. Respondents have filed their objections. Following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether on 21.1.88 Vehicle no. 336/JKZ driven by respondent no.1 under the employment of respondent nos. 2 & 3 rashly and negligently met with an accident near Marothi on Sudh Mahadev Dudu Road in consequence of which Ab. Majid who has also travelling in the ill fated vehicle along with others sustained grievous injuries and died on spot? OPP 2. Whether the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3000/-at the time of his death, if so what is its effect on the petitioner? OPP 3. Whether the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle as such respondent no.3 is not entitled to pay any amount to the deceased? OPR3 4. Relief." 4. Claimants/respondents have examined the witnesses including driver Mohd. Rafiq. Virtually the appellant had admitted that deceased was travelling in the truck. He died because the truck met with an accident and cause of the accident was heavy rain. 5. It also appears that batch of claim petitions came to be filed and the Tribunal recorded the findings that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver. 6. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. 7. While going through the memo of appeal, the appellant has questioned the award only on two grounds viz; (1) that the claim petition was admittedly time barred, (2) that compensation awarded is excessive. 8. The learned counsel argued that the award is not justified on the said two grounds. 9. 7. While going through the memo of appeal, the appellant has questioned the award only on two grounds viz; (1) that the claim petition was admittedly time barred, (2) that compensation awarded is excessive. 8. The learned counsel argued that the award is not justified on the said two grounds. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was a labourer and was also working as Raj Mistri. He was earning Rs.100/ -per day. 10. Appellant has not led any evidence in rebuttal. Thus, it can safely be held that he was earning Rs.3000/-per month as labourer/daily wager. It is but natural that he would have been spending 1/3rd for his personal expenses and rightly the Tribunal had assessed loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.2000/-per month. Admittedly, age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of death and the multiplier ˜Sixteen™ as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is applicable, but the Tribunal has applied multiplier of ˜Ten™, but unfortunately claimants/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have neither questioned the award to that extent by way of appeal nor by a cross objection. Reluctantly, the multiplier ˜Ten™ applied by the Tribunal is maintained. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that the claim petition was to be dismissed on the count that it was barred by time. I am of the view that argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable for the following reasons:- The Motor Vehicle Act has gone thorough a sea change and the provi- sion, whereunder the time frame was fixed, came to be deleted by the amendment and now in terms of the amendment, a claim petition can be filed at any time. Limitation will not come in the way of the claimants for seeking benefit of this social legislation. 12. Apex Court in cases titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus C. Pa dm a & a nr ., r ep ort ed a s AI R 2 003, SC, 439 4, Dha nnalal ve rsus D.P.Vijayvargiya & Ors., reported as AIR 1996 SC, 2155 and Vinod Gurudas Raikar versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 2156, laid-down the same law. 13. It is also apt to mention here in that the appellant has not taken this issue before the Tribunal in objections/reply nor by way of any other mode. Thus the appellant cannot raise this issue now. Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 2156, laid-down the same law. 13. It is also apt to mention here in that the appellant has not taken this issue before the Tribunal in objections/reply nor by way of any other mode. Thus the appellant cannot raise this issue now. 14. In the given circumstances, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, along with all CMPs.