Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1359 (HP)

Kamlesh Kotha v. Ajit Singh Bajwa

2014-09-26

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 15.1.2007, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1), Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in M.A.C. Petition No. 112-MAC/2 of 2005, titled as Smt. Kamlesh Kotha & others vs. Shri Ajit Singh & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,25,960/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants herein, (for short, the impugned award. BRIEF FACTS 2. The claimants, being victims of a motor vehicular accident, invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short the Act, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/- as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver-cum-owner, namely, Rattan Singh had driven the offending vehicle-tractor (unnumbered), rashly and negligently, on 09.10.2005, at about 12.30 p.m. at Y-Point, Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib, hit deceased Chaman Lal Kotha riding on scooter bearing registration No. HP-17-2638 was dragged to a considerable distance, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants have also pleaded in their claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,420/- per month and was 49 years of age at the time of accident. 3. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the insured-owner-cum-driver and the insurer-National Insurance Company. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 08.08.2006:- "1. Whether Chaman Lal received fatal injuries to his person and as such died while driving scooter No. HP-17-2638 on 09.10.2005 which was hit by a tractor without number being driven by respondent No. 1 Ajit Singh in a rash and negligent manner at Y-Point, Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being L.Rs. of deceased are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2 4. Whether Chaman Lal Kotha (since deceased) himself was negligent or rash as a result of which he met with an accident, as alleged? OPR-2 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-2 6. OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2 4. Whether Chaman Lal Kotha (since deceased) himself was negligent or rash as a result of which he met with an accident, as alleged? OPR-2 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-2 6. Whether the tractor was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-2 7. Whether the petition is filed in collusion with respondent No. 1 by the petitioners? OPR-2 8. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as alleged? OPR-2 9. Relief." 4. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. The insured-owner-cum-driver and the insurer-Insurance Company have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 6. The only dispute in this appeal is-whether the amount of compensation is inadequate or otherwise. 7. The learned Counsel for the insurer and the insured have conceded that they have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. 8. Thus, I deem it proper not to discuss the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 1 and 3 to 8. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues are upheld. 9. Now, coming to issue No. 2, the only dispute in this issue is whether the award amount is adequate? 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error while making deductions, keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. The Tribunal had to deduct 1/4th towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd and the multiplier of 12 was to be applied instead of 10. 11. I have gone through the evidence and the impugned award. The Tribunal had to deduct 1/4th towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd and the multiplier of 12 was to be applied instead of 10. 11. I have gone through the evidence and the impugned award. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was around 50 years, thus, the multiplier of ‘11’ was applicable in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the mandate of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s and Reshma Kumar’s cases, supra. 12. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was drawing salary to tune of Rs. 8,637/- per month, as per salary slip Ext. PW-3/A. Out of the said earning, the deceased must be spending 1/4th towards his personal expenses and the multiplier of “11” is applicable. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the tune of Rs. 6500x12 = 78,000x11 = 8,58,000/-. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,58,000/- under the head loss of dependency; Rs. 3,000/- under the head transportation charges, Rs. 2,000/- under the head “medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- under the head funeral charges Rs.10,000/- under the head “loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- under the head loss of consortium, total amounting to Rs. 8,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 14. The insurer-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount, before the Registry within six weeks from today. 15. The Registry to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions through payees account cheque. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of, as indicated above. 17. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.