Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1258 (HP)

Hamid Mohd. v. Rishi Pal

2014-09-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 10th September, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.23 of 1999, titled Sh. Hamid Mohd. vs. Rishi Pal & others, whereby a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant and against the insurer (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. The owner, driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 are set ex-parte. Brief facts 5. It is averred in the claim petition that the claimant is the victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely, Rajinder Kumar while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CHO IV-1459 on 4.6.1998 rashly and negligently, the said vehicle hit the claimant, who was driving the Scooter bearing registration No.HP-33-2923, sustained injuries, rendering him permanent disabled. 6. The claimant has filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 8. The following issues came to be framed in the claim petition:- “1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2? OPP 2. Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to his own rash and negligent driving as alleged? OPR-2 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-2 4. Whether the insurer is not liable to indemnify the injured as alleged? OPR-3 5. To what amount the claimant is entitled to receive as compensation? OPP. 6. Relief.” 9. The claimant has examined eight witnesses. The respondents have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence of the claimant remained un-rebutted. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimant has proved that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver he sustained injuries. At the cost of repetition, the owner, driver and the insurer have not questioned the same. The respondents have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence of the claimant remained un-rebutted. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimant has proved that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver he sustained injuries. At the cost of repetition, the owner, driver and the insurer have not questioned the same. Thus, it has attained finality and the findings returned on issues No.1 to 4 are upheld. 11. The Tribunal has held that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of ‘12’ though on lower side and awarded Rs.8,64,000/- under the head “loss of income” and Rs.1,23,324.70 under the head “medical expenses’, but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads of “pain and suffering” and “loss of amenities of life”. 12. The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , has discussed all aspects and laid down guidelines how a guess work is to be done and how compensation is to be awarded under the heads pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In other judgment, the Apex Court in Josphine James vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6633, has laid down the guidelines. 13. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments (supra), I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/-under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of ‘ loss of amenities of life’. 14. The award amount is enhanced and the claimant is held entitled to Rs.11,90,000/-. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within eight weeks in the Registry of this Court and in default, it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from today till the date of deposit. On deposition, the Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s account cheque, after proper identification. 15. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal stands disposed of alongwith all miscellaneous applications accordingly.