Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1006 (HP)

Gulshan Begam v. Surat Ram

2013-12-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 22.12.2005 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Shimla, H.P. whereby and whereunder ‘7,58,300/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the appellant and against the insurer/respondent No. 2 (for short the ‘impugned award’), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that on 9.2.1999, when the deceased, namely, Muhammad Yassin was traveling in a truck bearing registration No. HP- 09-1612, which he had hired for transportation of his articles, met with an accident at Prem Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. FIR No. 23 of 1999 under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station Kotkhai. Claimants-appellants herein filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune ‘ 1 crore, as per the break-up given in the claim petition. It was claimed that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning ‘50,000/- per month from the agricultural vocation and also working as a contractor in Telecommunication Department. 3.Respondents filed reply and following issues were framed:- (i). Whether the accident in question took place due to rash or negligent driving of truck No.HP-09-16 12 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No.1 is proved whether Mohammad Yassin for whose death compensation has been claimed died in the accident and the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP. (iii)Whether the respondentNo. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of occurrence of the accident? OPR-2. (iv) Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as alleged? OPR-2. (v) Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the petition by their own acts, conduct and deeds?OPR-2. (vi) Relief. 4. Claimants examined their witnesses. Respondents, in order to counter the claim of the claimants also led evidence. Learned tribunal after scanning the evidence has held that the claimants succeeded in proving Issues No.1 and 2, while as respondents/ Insurer failed to prove issues No.3 to 5. 5. (vi) Relief. 4. Claimants examined their witnesses. Respondents, in order to counter the claim of the claimants also led evidence. Learned tribunal after scanning the evidence has held that the claimants succeeded in proving Issues No.1 and 2, while as respondents/ Insurer failed to prove issues No.3 to 5. 5. The driver and the insurer have not questioned the award, therefore, the findings returned on issues No. 1, 3, 4 and 5, have attained finality. Therefore, I deem it proper not to discuss the same. 6. The claimants have contested the award by filing the present appeal on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 7. Thus, the moot question for consideration is whether the findings recorded while deciding issue No. 2 are legally correct? The answer is yes. 8. The deceased was matriculate. The claimants have led evidence and proved that he was agriculturist and was earning something from agricultural vocation. They have also proved that he was a contractor and doing his business in the Telecommunication Department. 9.The learned tribunal after examining the entire issue came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning ‘5,000/- per month and after making deductions applied the multiplier of ‘16’ and also awarded ‘2000/- as funeral expenses, ‘5000/- as loss of consortium and ‘2500/- as loss of estate. 10.It appears that the multiplier applied is on higher side. Since the insurer has not questioned the same, so I deem it proper not to disturb the multiplier applied. 11. Keeping in view the mandate of Sarla Verma’s case reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with judgment of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and anr. 2013 AIR (SCW) 3 120, I am of the considered view that the award and amount is adequate, needs no interference. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned tribunal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.