Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1198 (HP)

Kusum Kumari v. M. D. U. P. Roadways

2014-09-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.2.2013, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur in MAC petition No. 20 of 2011 titled Kusum Kumari and others vs. M.D. U.P. Roadways and others, whereby the claim petition of the claimants came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the claimants had filed claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.25 lacs on account of death of Madan Lal in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 29.1.2011 at about 7 p.m. at G.T. Road, Manglor, District Mujaffar Nagar (Uttarakhand) in front of Ujala Factor Manglor, of Bus No. UP-11-T-2701 of U.P. Transport Corporation due to rash and negligent driving of its driver Sanjeev Malik, respondent No. 3 herein. In the said accident deceased Madan lal suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. Respondents resisted the clam petition by filing joint reply wherein they admitted the accident. 4. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 23.2.2012. (i) Whether deceased Madan Lal, died on 29.1.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle in question by respondent No. 3 Sanjeev Malik, at the relevant time, as alleged? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP (iii) Relief. 5. The respondents have not denied paras 8, 22 and 24 of the claim petition. In reply to para 8, the respondents offered no comments. As per the mandate of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short “the Code”, the pleadings not denied specifically or denied evasively, shall be deemed to have been admitted. 6. The claimants have placed on record the photocopy of FIR No. 7/11/32 dated 29.1.2011, registered at Police Station Manglor, under Sections 279, 304-A, Indian Penal Code which do disclose that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the said FIR was registered against him. The claimants had also examined Gajender Singh who has deposed that he was working with the deceased as a fitter in Rana Udyog Rolling Mill, Roorkee on monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. The claimants had also examined Gajender Singh who has deposed that he was working with the deceased as a fitter in Rana Udyog Rolling Mill, Roorkee on monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. On 29.1.2011 when they were going together for performing their duties, deceased was hit by UP Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No. UP-11-2701 being driven by respondent No. 3, Sanjeev Malik its driver. After the accident, he made report to the police Sation Manglor, on which FIR Ext. PW2/A came to be registered. 7. The respondents have neither denied the averments contained in the claim petition nor have led any evidence. Thus, the averments contained in the claim petition remained un-rebutted and also the evidence led by the claimants remained unrebutted. It is beaten law of the land that the claim petitions have to be decided by preponderance of probabilities. The aim and object for granting compensation has to be achieved, strict pleadings and proof are not required in claim cases and procedural wrangles tangles and mystic maybes have no role to play. 8. The apex court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another (2013) 10 SCC 646 , held that rules of pleadings are not strictly applicable in the claim petitions. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para-8 of the aforesaid judgment herein:- “8. In United India Insurance Company Limited V. Shila Datta & Ors. while considering the nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three-judge-bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow: ( SCC p. 518, para 10) “10(ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal.” ** ** 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in dismissing the claim petition and returning findings on issue No. 1. I have examined the record and am of the considered view that by leading oral as well as documentary evidence the claimants have proved that respondent No. 3 has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on the date of accident. I have examined the record and am of the considered view that by leading oral as well as documentary evidence the claimants have proved that respondent No. 3 has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on the date of accident. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favor of the claimants and against respondent No. 3. 10. Now coming to issue No. 2, the claimants have pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.15000/- per month. There is no documentary proof on the file. However, taking the deceased as labourer, by a guess work, it can be held he would have been earning Rs.3000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd, the loss of source of dependency is held to be Rs.2000/- per month. 11. The claimants have pleaded and proved that the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident and in terms of the Schedule appended to the Act and in view of Sarla Verms versus Delhi Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , multiplier of “14” is applicable. 12. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of income to the tune of Rs.2000x12x14 total of which comes to Rs. 3, 36,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 13. As a corollary, the respondents are held liable to pay the compensation. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today in the Registry of this Court and on deposit, the same shall be released to the claimants in equal shares. The amount of minors be kept in fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority and FDRs be handed over to Kusum Kumari mother of the minors. 14. The impugned award is set aside. The claim petition is allowed, as indicated above. The appeal stands accordingly, disposed of. Send down the record, forthwith.