Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1047 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. PARWATI

2013-12-23

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. IN this appeal, filed under the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the National Insurance Company (insurer) has assailed the award dated 5.11.2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, in MACT Petition No.51-S/2 of 2009, titled as Parwati Devi and others versus Raj Sharma and another. Operative portion of the award reads as under: "In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 5, the petition is allowed with costs. The petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.8,45,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of the awarded amount by respondent No.2 within one month from today. However, it is clarified that if any amount of compensation has already been paid by the respondents to the petitioners, then the said awarded amount shall Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? be deducted from the total awarded amount. Out of total awarded amount, petitioner No.1 . being mother of the deceased, shall be entitled to collect an amount of Rs.1.0 lac. and remaining amount shall be collected by the petitioners No.2 to 5 in equal share. Since, the petitioners No.3 to 5 are minors, the awarded amount of their share shall be invested in a nationalized bank in the shape of FDRs till date of attaining the majority by them. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to record room." 2. CHALLENGE to the award is on the ground that amount of compensation awarded is far in excess than the legitimate claim of the claimants. On 21.2.2009, deceased Yog Raj was travelling in Vehicle No.HP-11-2687. On account of rash and negligent act and conduct of the driver, the vehicle met with an accident, in which both Yog Raj and the driver expired. FIR No.44, dated 22.2.2009, under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Rampur Bushehr. 3. LEGAL heirs of deceased Yog Raj filed petition, under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Claimant No.1, aged 60 years, is the mother of the deceased; claimant No.2, aged 35 years, is the wife of the deceased; and claimants No.3, 4 and 5, aged between 14 and 16 years, are the children of the deceased. 4. Claimant No.1, aged 60 years, is the mother of the deceased; claimant No.2, aged 35 years, is the wife of the deceased; and claimants No.3, 4 and 5, aged between 14 and 16 years, are the children of the deceased. 4. OWNER of the vehicle objected to the petition, on the ground that accident occurred on account of some mechanical defect. Insurer took a defence that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following orders: Issue No.1 Whether Sh. Yog Raj died on account of rash and negligent driving of late Sh. Dina Nath, husband of respondent No.1?...OPP Issue No.2 If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount and from whom, the petitioners are entitled for compensation? ...OPP Issue No.3 Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of the policy? ...OPR-2 Issue No.4 Whether the driver had no valid driving license? ...OPR-2 Issue No.5 Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR-2 Issue No.6 Relief. 5. THE fact that accident took place on 21.2.2009, in which Yog Raj died, is not in dispute. It also stands substantiated through FIR (Ex. P-1) placed on record. 6. THERE is nothing on record to show that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence or that any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (R-2) stand violated. Photocopy (Ex. R-1) of the driving licence also stands proved on record. Tribunal decided issues No.3, 4 and 5, holding that no evidence was led by the objectors in support thereof. Even here, nothing could be pointed out as to how finding on these issues is erroneous or illegal. 7. COMING to the sole ground of challenge, it is not in dispute that claimants are the legal heirs. The question is, whether they are dependent or not. Smt. Sangeeta Devi (PW-1), wife of the deceased, has stepped into the witness box and from her testimony it cannot be disputed that all the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. It also stands established, through their testimony, that family has no other source of income. As per claimants, deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. 8. Smt. Sangeeta Devi (PW-1), wife of the deceased, has stepped into the witness box and from her testimony it cannot be disputed that all the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. It also stands established, through their testimony, that family has no other source of income. As per claimants, deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. 8. CLAIMANTS produced on record, certain material to show that deceased was carrying business of sale and purchase of fruits, thus deriving an income of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, this evidence did not find favour with the Tribunal. But the fact that deceased was maintaining an orchard, revenue record (Ex.PW-1/D) with respect thereto was placed on record, weighed with the Tribunal in determining the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month. This finding, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be erroneous, perverse or illegal so far as the insurer is concerned. It being a different matter that the claimants have not assailed such findings. Accident took place in the year 2009 and Rs.6,000/- per month is the minimum income which a person could have derived from the orchard. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and other subsequent decisions, Tribunal deducted 1/4th of this amount for determining the loss of dependency. Thus, an amount of Rs.54,000/- per annum was taken towards loss of dependency. 9. IT stands established on record, through the postmortem report (Ex. PW-1/B), that deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, multiplier of 15 has been correctly applied by the Tribunal, while determining compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- as loss of income. A sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of estate and consortium; and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, the present appeal, without any merit, is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.