Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 362 (JK)

Union Of India v. Seema Devi

2014-08-29

TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 15.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in File No. 491/Claim, titled as Seema Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & others, whereby an amount of Rs. 6,55,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% came to be awarded in favour of claimants-respondents herein and against the appellants herein from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization (for short, impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The facts as gathered from the claim petition are that on 07.10.2000, deceased Kuldeep Raj, army personnel, was travelling from Pouni to Tiryath on his scooter. When he reached at Jandhi Morh, he was hit by a GREF vehicle, bearing registration No. 93E5977, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The deceased suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the same in the hospital on 12.10.2000. At the time of accident, the deceased was 23 years of age and his monthly income was stated to be Rs. 6000/-. Legal heirs of the deceased respondents herein, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,80,000/- as per the break-up given in the claim petition. 3. Appellant-Union of India filed objections before the learned Tribunal and contested the claim petition. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues directed the parties to lead evidence. 4. Claimants examined PW Dhani Ram, besides claimants Seema Devi and Raghubir Singh, also appeared in the witness box. 5. Union of India did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, thus, the evidence led by claimants has remained un-rebutted. 6. Learned Tribunal after going through the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, held the claimants-respondents 1 to 4 herein entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/-along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the Union of India has filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. 6,55,000/-along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the Union of India has filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. The appellants-Union of India has assailed the impugned award mainly on three counts- (i) at the time of accident, there was no witness to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, rather the offending vehicle never hit the scooter of deceased; (ii) the award passed by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant and on higher side, and (iii) there was a delay in filing the claim petition. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the evidence recorded by the Tribunal and the documents on the file. 10. PW Dhani Ram deposed that on 07.10.2000, he was going to his home from Jammu and when he reached Jhandhi Morh near Pouni Bharakh, the accident-in-question took place in his presence due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. He further deposed that the offending vehicle hit the scooter on which two brothers were travelling. He further deposed that his statement was also recorded by the Police. PW Raghubir Singh also deposed that he was also a witness to the occurrence. 11. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that there was no witness at the time of accident. Further, both the witnesses have categorically stated that the accident was the act of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. The rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is further proved from the FIR registered against him under Sections 279/337/304-A RPC and the contents of the Challan presented before the Court of Law. Further, in absence of any evidence in rebuttal, there is no occasion to disbelieve, the statements of both the witnesses or the contents of FIR/challan. 12. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased was an army personnel and was getting Rs. 6000/- as monthly salary excluding other benefits. The claimants, however, have failed to produce any documentary evidence in order to prove that the deceased was serving in the army and was drawing monthly salary of Rs 6000/-. Appellants herein have also failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal. 6000/- as monthly salary excluding other benefits. The claimants, however, have failed to produce any documentary evidence in order to prove that the deceased was serving in the army and was drawing monthly salary of Rs 6000/-. Appellants herein have also failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal. Learned Tribunal, while taking into consideration all the relevant factors, has rightly held that though there was no definite evidence to prove the income of deceased, yet taking into account his age and the profession, assessed his monthly income as Rs 4,500/-. After deducting one third as his personal expenses, learned Tribunal held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month. Learned Tribunal taking the age of deceased as 23 years at the time of accident, has rightly applied multiplier of 17 while assessing the loss of income of claimants at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 6,12,000/- in favour of claimants under the head loss of dependency Rs. 10,000/- under the head Medical expenses and other incidental charges, Rs. 15,000/- under the head loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/- under the head loss of estate and Rs. 3000/- under the head funeral expenses. Thus, in total, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,55,000/- along with 7.5% interest in favour of claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. At the time of accident, the deceased was only 23 years of age. He left behind his young widow of 22 years, a minor daughter and old parents. The exercise done by the Tribunal to work out the monthly income of the deceased is, therefore, strictly in accordance with law. In absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of the parties to determine the exact income of the deceased, the Tribunal has the freedom to resort to some guess work keeping in view all the relevant factors. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased taken into account by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. There is no reason to find fault with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is upheld. There is no reason to find fault with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is upheld. 14. Registry to forthwith send down the record of learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.