Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1044 (HP)

LEKH RAM v. INDU BHARDWAJ

2013-12-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. All these three appeals are the outcome of a common award, dated 7th September, 2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby three claim petitions, titled as , Lekh Ram & others v. Indu Bhardwaj & others, Nand Lal & others v. Indu Bhardwaj & others, and Nardu Devi & others v. Indu Bhardwaj & others, came to be determined by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,61,500/-, Rs. 1,61,500/- and Rs. 5,88,500/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petitions till its realization, in the said claim petitions, respectively, (for short, impugned award). 2. Appellants-claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of these three appeals on the ground of adequacy of compensation. The owner/insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count. 3. Thus, the only question involved in these appeals is - whether the amount of compensation awarded is just and appropriate? 4. I deem it proper to decide all these three appeals by common judgment for the reason that all the three claim petitions came to be determined by the common impugned award, read with the fact that all these appeals are outcome of the claim petitions, which have arisen on account of a traffic vehicular accident caused by driver, namely, Raj Kumar, who has driven the Bus bearing, No.HP-51-4145 rashly and negligently, near Lower Totu, Airport road, Shimla on 19th August, 2002. Brief facts: 5. The claimants have averred in the claim petitions that driver Raj Kumar has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on the fateful date and has caused accident, which resulted in the death of Khem Chand, Deepak and Ghewal Ram. Claimants-appellants claimed compensation as per the break-ups given in each claim petition on the ground that they have lost source of dependency. 6. The insurer, the driver and the owner filed replies and contested the claim petitions. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "Issue No.1 Whether Khem Chand, Ghewal Ram and Deepak Kumar died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a bus (No.HP 51-4145) by respondent No.2 Raj Kumar alias Raju near lower Totu, Air port Road, Shimla on August 19, 2002? OPP and OPR 4 to 6. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "Issue No.1 Whether Khem Chand, Ghewal Ram and Deepak Kumar died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a bus (No.HP 51-4145) by respondent No.2 Raj Kumar alias Raju near lower Totu, Air port Road, Shimla on August 19, 2002? OPP and OPR 4 to 6. Issue No. 2 Whether the accident was attributable to rashness and negligence of respondent 5 Kewal Singh, who was at the wheel of a Tempo (No.HP 51-3690) at the material time? OPR/1 to 3 Issue No.3 Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. Issue No.4 Whether the petitions are maintainable? OPR Issue No.5 Whether the Bus (No.HP 51-4145) was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR Issue No.6 Whether the respondent 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus in question? OPR/3 Issue No.7 Whether the respondent No.5 Kewal Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR/6 Issue No.8 Whether the owner of the Tempo (No.HP-51-3690) was not possessed of a valid registration certificate, if so, to what effect? OPR/6 Issue No.9 Whether the Tempo (No.HP51-3690) was being driven without any effective fitness certificate, if so, to what effect? OPR Issue No.10 Relief." 7. Parties were directed to lead evidence. Parties have led evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the record in each case, the Tribunal decided all the claim petitions in terms of the impugned award. The claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any other ground. As discussed hereinabove, the other parties have also not questioned the impugned award. Thus, the findings returned on Issue Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have gone uncontested, as there is no challenge, and the same are to be upheld. 8. Now, only issue No.3 is under challenge to the extent of adequacy of compensation. 9. I have gone through the reasoning recorded in each case. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency. 8. Now, only issue No.3 is under challenge to the extent of adequacy of compensation. 9. I have gone through the reasoning recorded in each case. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency. The Tribunal also applied multiplier in each case in accordance with the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to carve out a case, while keeping in view the price rise and other factors, but he has lost sight of the fact that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the dates, facts, circumstances and other relevant factors while making the impugned award. Thus, the argument is devoid of any force. 11. It is also worthwhile to record herein that the insurer/judgment debtor has also complied with the directions and has satisfied the impugned award, cannot be now asked to pay the enhanced compensation in view of change of circumstances and the prevailing factors. 12. In view of the above discussion, the compensation awarded is just and proper in each claim petition, cannot be said to be inadequate. 13. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeals are dismissed. Copy of this judgment be placed on each file.