Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1400 (HP)

Neelam Kaushal v. Ashok Kumar

2014-10-10

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 23rd December, 2006, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1), Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 119-S/2 of 2005, titled as Smt. Neelam Kaushal & others versus Shri Ashok Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award 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, 1988, for short ?the Act?, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver, namely, Ashok Kumar had driven the offending vehicle-truck bearing registration No. HP-14-3104, rashly and negligently, on 29.08.2005, at about 2.30 p.m., near Konark Hotel, National Highway, Brewery, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.; hit deceased Shashi Kant Kaushal riding on a scooter bearing registration No. HP-14-8114; was dragged towards Brewery for about 50 feet; sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants have also pleaded in their claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.14,286/- and was 46 years of age at the time of accident. 3. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the insured-owner, the driver and the insurer-National Insurance Company. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 02.09.2006:- ?1. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries caused due to rash/negligent driving of the truck by the respondent No. 1.? …..OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the deceased has died on account of his own negligence driving of the scooter which he was riding? …OPR-1 and 2. 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding any driving licence and was not entitled to drive the truck on the relevant date? …OPR-3 5. Whether the truck was not validly registered and was being used in contravention? …OPR-3 6. Relief.? 5. The insured-owner, the driver and the insurer- Insurance Company have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding any driving licence and was not entitled to drive the truck on the relevant date? …OPR-3 5. Whether the truck was not validly registered and was being used in contravention? …OPR-3 6. Relief.? 5. The insured-owner, the 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 claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 7. There is no dispute regarding the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 3 to 5. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues have attained finality. 8. Now, coming to issue No. 2, the only dispute in this issue is whether the award amount is adequate? 9. The basic pay of the deceased was Rs.8,100/-per month, as per the Last Pay Certificate, Ext. PW-1/A and his gross income was Rs.14,286/- as stated in the claim petition. The Tribunal has rightly taken the average gross monthly income of the deceased as Rs.19,000/-; deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and Rs.9,000/- including the income tax and held the claimants entitled to the tune of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of dependency. 10. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 46 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of =10', while keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 11. The Tribunal has also rightly held the claimants entitled to the tune of Rs.15,000/- as conventional charges and Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. 12. Having said so, the amount awarded is not inadequate, in any way, is just and proper. 13. However, the Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award, i.e. 23rd December, 2006, was to be awarded from the date of the claim petition in terms of the mandate of Section 171 of the Act. The impugned award is modified and the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, i.e. 23rd November, 2005. 14. The impugned award is modified and the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, i.e. 23rd November, 2005. 14. The insurer-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount before the Registry within two months 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.