Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1158 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sheela Devi

2014-08-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. (oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 10th March, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC No.48 of 2005/2003, titled Smt Sheela Devi & others vs. Chaman Enterprises & another, whereby a sum of Rs.6,02,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7½ % per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. The claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that deceased Mangal Singh was working as Supervisor and was on duty at Toll Tax barrier at Gara Mora. He was hit by vehicle-Bulker bearing registration No.HP-24A-2493 at about 9.30 p.m. on 31.5.2003, which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same at PGI Chandigarh. The claimants further pleaded in the clam petition that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month, was also receiving Rs.2,000/- for his free boarding and lodging expenses and earning from diary business and agriculture vocation Rs.5,000/-. 4. The respondents contested the claim petition on various grounds by filing separate replies. 5. The following issues came to be framed in the claim petition :- “1. Whether the deceased had died as a result of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No.HP-24-A-2493? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved, what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners entitled to? OPP. 3. Whether the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so, its effect? OPR-2 4. Whether there was not a contract of insurance? OPR-2. 5. Relief.” 6. The claimants have led evidence and examined Sheela Devi, one of the claimants, Ram Parkash, Sanjay Kumar and H.C. Rajeshwar Singh. The owner and the insurer have not led any evidence. The claimants also placed on record copies of FIR (Ext. PW-2/B), death certificate (Ext. PA), pariwar register (Ext PB) and matriculation certificate of the deceased (Ext.PC). The insurer has placed on record copy of insurance policy (Ext R1). 7. The owner and the insurer have not led any evidence. The claimants also placed on record copies of FIR (Ext. PW-2/B), death certificate (Ext. PA), pariwar register (Ext PB) and matriculation certificate of the deceased (Ext.PC). The insurer has placed on record copy of insurance policy (Ext R1). 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimants have proved that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver the deceased Mangal Singh had lost his life, which is not in dispute. Thus, the findings returned on issue No.1 are upheld. 8. Respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence in order to discharge onus on issues No.3 and 4. Accordingly, the findings returned by the tribunal are also upheld. 9. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 10. I have gone through the claim petition and the impugned award. Though, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month from various sources, but the Tribunal after examining the pleadings and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd out of the income of the deceased, on account of his personal expenses, held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier of ‘15’ was rightly applied, in view the judgments made by the Apex Court in cases tilted as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. The appellant has failed to indicate how the amount awarded is excessive. 11. Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s account cheque, after proper identification.