Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 133 (UTT)

KANWAL SINGH v. IKRAM

2013-03-14

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C. Case No.81/2009, whereby the claim petition has been partly allowed and the respondent no.2 Oriental Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.3,20,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 17.6.2009 at about 6:30 PM Amit @ Vickky (deceased) was going in his Indica Car bearing no.HR0069377 from Ramnagar to Roorkee. When he reached near Milti Crossing, a truck coming from the front side, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, collided with his car causing grievous injuries to the deceased resulting his death. The claimants have alleged that the deceased was a driver and from this he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The claimants thus 2 claimed a sum of Rs.19,20,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum, as compensation. 3. The opposite party no.1, owner of the truck, filed his written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has been stated that the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Thus, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against him. 4. The opposite party no.2, Oriental Insurance Company, also filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has been stated that at the time of accident the deceased was not possessing valid driving licence and the vehicle was being driven against the terms and conditions of the Act. 5. The learned tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. 6. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition against the Insurance Company and directed the compensation as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 9. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 9. Since this is an appeal for enhancement of compensation and no cross appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, the Court has to consider issue no.4 only. 10. This fact is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and mother and father are the claimants. The Tribunal has recorded the age of deceased as 20 years at the time of accident. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, since no evidence was adduced by the parties to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal treated the deceased to be semi skilled labour and has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.45,000/- per annum. Further, as the deceased was unmarried, the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards the personal expenses and has adopted a multiplier of 14 on the age of mother, in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC) and has thus rightly calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs.3,15,000/-. 11. In addition to above, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and further a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards Loss of Invest, that also does not call for any interference. 12. In view of the above, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,15,000/- + 2,500/- + Rs.2,500/- = Rs.3,20,000/-. This Court finds that it is a just and proper compensation which was awarded by the learned Tribunal to the appellants/claimants. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Impugned judgment and award dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C. Case No.81/2009, is affirmed. 14. Let the lower court record be remitted to M.A.C.T. concerned.