Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1253 (HP)

Narbada Devi v. Kamla Devi

2014-09-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 02.01.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Shimla, H.P, for short “The Tribunal” in MAC Petition No. 77-S/2 of 2005/2004 titled Smt. Narbada Devi vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and another, on the ground of adequacy of compensation, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. The driver, owner and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The Tribunal while determining issue No. 5 held that deceased being bachelor at the time of accident, was earning Rs.2400/- per month and after source of dependency to the tune of Rs.800/- per month, i.e., 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased. The assessment made by the Tribunal, on the face of it, is bad in law and not in accordance with the mandate rendered in Sarla Verma versus Delhi Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld in Reshma Kumari & ors vs. Madan Mohan & anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 5. Having said so, I hereby hold that the Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the income of the deceased and the loss of income. It can be safely held that the income of the deceased was Rs.3000/- per month while treating him as a labourer. 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and 50% is loss of source of dependency. Thus, it is held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. 6. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 21 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal has rightly held that the age of the deceased was 21 years but has fallen in error in applying the multiplier. The multiplier of “15” was applicable, as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sarla Verma’s judgment supra. Thus, I hereby hold that the multiplier of “15” is applicable. 7. The multiplier of “15” was applicable, as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sarla Verma’s judgment supra. Thus, I hereby hold that the multiplier of “15” is applicable. 7. In the given circumstances, it is hereby held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1500x12x15 total of which comes to Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ Rs.6 % per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing the claim petition, till its realization. 8. Other issues are not in dispute. Thus, findings on the said issues have attained finality and are upheld. 9. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced and impugned award is modified, as indicated above. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks in the Registry of this Court. On deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimant, through payee’s account cheque. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Send down the record, forthwith.