Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1017 (HP)

Rattu Devi v. SATISH KUMAR

2013-12-13

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
JUDGEMENT MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. - 1. THESE appeals are directed against the common award, dated 5th October, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Petitions No. 19 of 2003 and 46 of 2003, tilted as Rattu Devi & another versus Satish Kumar & others and Monika Kumari versus Satish Kumar & others, whereby compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ and Rs. 3,50,000/ came to be awarded in favour of the claimants appellants and against the respondents herein, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals. Brief facts: 2. ON 13th November, 2002, at about 9.00 a.m. at Bhurni. Nala near Kandha on Janjehli Mandi road, deceased Jyotender Kumar, deceased Indira Devi, deceased Manohar Lal and claimant Monika Kumari were travelling in Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP339468 from Thunag towards Mandi, being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, who lost control over the same, as a result of which the car rolled about 300 feet down from the road and Jyotender Kumar, Indira Devi and Manohar Lal lost their lives. Appellants in both these appeals have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation being the victims of the vehicular accident on the grounds taken in the claim petitions. 3. THE following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether Indira Devi and Jyotender Kumar died as a result of accident of Maruti Car No. HP339468, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1?...OPP 2. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in contravention of the provision of the insurance policy?...OPR6. 3. To what amount and from whom the petitioners are entitled?...OPP 4. Relief." 4. THE Tribunal, after examining all the issues as well as the evidence led by the claimants, has held that the Maruti Car was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Thus, the Tribunal, while allowing the petitions, awarded Rs. 5,00,000/ and Rs. 3,50,000/ in the respective petitions as compensation. The insurer respondent No. 6 was saddled with the liability. The owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle have not raised any finger, thus, the impugned award has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 5. Thus, the Tribunal, while allowing the petitions, awarded Rs. 5,00,000/ and Rs. 3,50,000/ in the respective petitions as compensation. The insurer respondent No. 6 was saddled with the liability. The owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle have not raised any finger, thus, the impugned award has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 5. THE appellants claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation read with denial of the interest. 6. LEARNED counsel for the appellants claimants has restricted the claim so far as it relates to interest only. Thus, the only ground pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants claimants is that the interest be awarded. The Tribunal has awarded compensation while applying the multiplier method as given in Schedule attached with the MV Act and also approved by the Apex Court in series of cases, particularly in Susamma Thomas case, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , Sarla Verma & others versus Delhi Transport Corporation & another, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104, and the latest case reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan & another. 7. THE Tribunal has fallen in an error as per the mandate of Section 171 of MV Act read with Section 34 of the CPC. Keeping in view above discussion, the claimants are entitled to interest. 8. AT this stage, learned counsel for the Insurance Company respondent No. 6 stated at the Bar that the award stands satisfied. Viewed thus, the claimants appellants are held entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the award was satisfied by the Insurance Company respondent No. 6. The interest amount be deposited within four weeks before the Registry of this Court. 9. ACCORDINGLY, the impugned award is modified and the appeals are disposed of. Copy of this order be placed on each file. 10. SEND down the record.