Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 127 (HP)

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Raju

2014-02-26

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.9.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in M.A.C. Petition No.21 of 2012. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “claimants” for the sake of convenience) have filed claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of Lekhu, who died in a motor vehicle accident involving bus No. HP 73-2784. According to the claimants, Lekhu died on 10.9.2011 at about 8.40 A.M. near village Ser, Police Station Tissa, District Chamba while travelling in ill fated bus, which met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. He was eighteen years of age. He was working as labourer and was also an agriculturist. His income was Rs.11,000/-per month. FIR No.106/2011 was registered at Police Station Tissa. 3. The appellant being Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition. According to the appellant, the owner of the bus in question has contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder. 4. The claim petition was also contested by the owner, i.e. respondent No.3. 5. Learned Tribunal framed the issues on 17.11.2012 and awarded a sum of Rs.6,71,800/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 28.2.2012 till its realization. Out of compensation amount, respondent No.2, being mother of the deceased, was awarded a sum of Rs.6,31,800/- and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses, loss of estate and love and affection to the claimants in equal shares. The appellant was ordered to indemnify the claim on behalf of the owner of the bus in question, respondent No.4. Hence, the appeal. 6. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has not correctly assessed the income of the deceased. He then contended that multiplier of 18 adopted by the learned Tribunal was on higher side. He also argued that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also gone through the impugned award minutely. 8. He then contended that multiplier of 18 adopted by the learned Tribunal was on higher side. He also argued that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also gone through the impugned award minutely. 8. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by respondent No.4. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 18 years. He was employed as labourer as per the affidavit filed by respondent No.2. She has not been cross-examined on the issue of income. She has reiterated the averments contained in the claim petition in her evidence by way of an affidavit. Learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day. The plea that the deceased was an agriculturist has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has also awarded increase of 30% on the daily wages, i.e. Rs.1350/- per month. Thus, learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased to Rs.5850/- per month. The loss of dependency of the claimants has been worked out to Rs.2925/- per month or Rs.2925 x 12 = 35,100/- per annum. Since the age of the father of the deceased was only 45 years, the multiplier of 18 cannot be said to be excessive. The income arrived at by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law. Learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration future increase in the daily wages, which is bound to happen with the passage of time due to inflationary trends. The owner, respondent No.4, has produced on record the copy of the driving licence of the driver. The vehicle was duly insured as per Annexure R1. Thus, there was no breach of policy and driver was possessing valid driving licence. 9. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout and another vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and ors., (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 695 have held that future prospects of deceased in case of self employed persons or persons engaged on fixed wages cannot be ignored. Their Lordships have held as under:- “20. The Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job. Their Lordships have held as under:- “20. The Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job. Though the claim of the appellants is Rs.5000/- as monthly salary of the deceased for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency, the actual entitlement of the salary of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.6000/- per month by the Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation, which is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.[1]; 30% of future prospects of the deceased should be added to the monthly income. If 30% is added to the monthly income, it would amount to Rs.7800/- p.m. From the same, 1/3rd should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, then the remaining amount would come to Rs.5,200/-per month. The same is multiplied by 12 amounting to Rs.62,400/- which would be the multiplicand. The same must be multiplied by 16 multiplier as the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 35 as mentioned in the post mortem report, which is produced as Exh.5. According to the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the multiplier of 16 taken by the Tribunal for computation of loss of dependency is correct. If the 16 multiplier is applied to the multiplicand of Rs.62,400/-, it comes to Rs.9,98,400/- which amount is awarded towards the loss of dependency of the appellants. 21. We have answered point No.1 in favour of the appellants holding that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was 50% contributory negligence of both the drivers of the offending truck and the deceased, is erroneous and further 50% deduction out of the total loss of dependency compensation determined by the Tribunal is not correct. Therefore, we have to hold that the appellants are entitled to the full amount of Rs.9,98,400/-.” 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No costs.