Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1007 (HP)

Gopi Devi v. Executive Engineer National Highway

2013-12-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.12.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla in MACC No. 1-S/2 of 2005/04, whereby and whereunder ‘4,80,000, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization, has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants and against the respondents, (for short the ‘impugned award’) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2.Facts in brief are that on 28.8.2002, the deceased was traveling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06-1412, which was going to Matiyana from Theog. At 4.15 p.m., when the vehicle reached near Devimore, it met with an accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver, as a result of which, deceased died on the spot. The claimants had sought compensation to the tune of ‘10 lacs, as per break-up given in the claim petition. 3. Respondents appeared and filed written statement. The following issues were framed:- 1.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? OPP. 2.Relief. 4.The claimants examined Smt. Gopi Devi widow of deceased as witness and respondents examined one Sant Ram. 5. After scanning the evidence, learnedTribunal awarded ‘4,80,000/- with 6% interest from the institution of the claim petition till its realization in favour of the claimants/appellants against the respondents herein. 6. Respondents have not questioned the impugned award, thus it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. However, appellants/claimants have questioned the same on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, only issue in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded is just and appropriate? 7. I have gone through the record and I am of the considered view that the claimants have proved by leading documentary evidences that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 28th August, 2002 and also the deceased had sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal has held that deceased was earning 5102/- per month as salary and was of 47 years of age at the time of the accident. The deceased left behind widow and minor daughters. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. The Tribunal has held that deceased was earning 5102/- per month as salary and was of 47 years of age at the time of the accident. The deceased left behind widow and minor daughters. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with judgment passed in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and anr. 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, the learned Tribunal after deducting 1/4th, has rightly held that claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of ‘3,800/- per month. 8. The learned tribunal while taking note of the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants, has rightly held that the multiplier ‘10’ is most appropriate, and rightly applied the same. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded the interest. 9. In the given circumstances, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be inadequate. Accordingly the award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.