Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 453 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Taro Devi

2014-04-24

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J (oral) The insurer, in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act), has assailed the award dated 25.08.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Claim Petition No. 26 of 2007, titled as Taro Devi Versus Vinod Kumar and others, allowing the claim petition filed by Taro Devi (respondent herein), under Section 166 of the Act. 2. Findings of fact are to the following effect:- (i) Anant Ram, son of claimant Taro Devi died in the road accident on 06.02.2007; (ii) Accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-29-1677, in which Anant Ram was travelling; (iii) On an amount of Rs.2000/- per month, which the claimant would have received from the deceased as a dependent, by applying a multiplier of 18, claimant was held entitled for compensation ofRs.4,32,000/-; and (iv) The vehicle was insured with the insurer. In the absence of any proof of breach of terms of Policy, liability is that of the insurer. 3. The factum of occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. That Anant Ram died in the said accident is also not in dispute. That accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act and conduct of driver Sanju alias Sanjay, stands established on record through the testimony of Devinder Kumar (PW.3) and spot witness Manglu Ram (PW.4). That vehicle was insured is also not in dispute. Deceased was son of claimant Taro Devi, is also not in dispute. Insurer, in my considered view, could not establish breach of terms of insurance policy and findings of fact returned by the Tribunal, on this count, cannot be said to be perverse and illegal. Evidence is on record to establish such findings of fact. 4. This leaves with the remaining question, as to whether the following amount awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable:- “Loss of contribution Rs.2000 x 12 x 18= Rs.4,32,000/- Loss of Estate = Rs.10,000/- Funeral Charges = Rs.5,000/- Transportation charges = Rs.5,000/- Total =Rs.4,52,000/-” 5. The only scope of interference, in my considered view, is with regard to the multiplier of 18 so applied by the Tribunal, while determining the amount of compensation. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 by taking the age of deceased to be 22 years. The only scope of interference, in my considered view, is with regard to the multiplier of 18 so applied by the Tribunal, while determining the amount of compensation. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 by taking the age of deceased to be 22 years. It is this factual error which needs to be rectified. Undisputedly at the time of accident/death, age of the claimant was 47 years. As such, multiplier of 13, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 had to be applied. The impugned award dated 25.08.2012, thus stands modified to this extent, holding that instead of Rs.4,32,000/- quantified as loss of compensation, claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- ( Rs.2000 x 12 x 13). Except for the same, petitioner shall be entitled to all other benefits, including interest, in terms of the impugned award. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.