Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 517 (HP)

Gramin Uttrakhand Parivahan v. Jai Devi

2014-05-01

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): This appeal is instituted against the award dated 18.1.2014, rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in MAC Petition No. 128-MAC/2 of 2011. 2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that respondent No.1/claimant (hereinafter referred to as the “claimant” for the sake of convenience) filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of her husband, Ghana Nand in a motor vehicle accident on 19.6.2011. According to claim petition, on 19.6.2011, Ghana Nand was going on foot to his home on Nahan-Paonta road. At about 12.45 P.M., when he reached at village Shambhuwala, bus No. UA-07M-4166, belonging to Uttrakhand Parivahan being driven by respondent No.2, came from Paonta side in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side and hit Ghana Nand. He received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident was stated to have taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The deceased was getting pension of Rs.9433/- and earning a sum of Rs.5000/- from other sources. 3. Reply was filed by respondent No.2. He denied the accident. 4. The appellant filed separate reply. The appellant admitted the accident, but denied that the same was result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. 5. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the issues on 26.6.2012 and vide award dated 18.1.2014 awarded a sum of Rs.5,26,912/- in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of amount. The appellant and respondent No.2 were held liable to pay compensation amount jointly and severally. 6. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased Ghana Nand. He then argued that the multiplier of 7 applied on income of Rs.5618/- is on the higher side. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned Award carefully. 8. He then argued that the multiplier of 7 applied on income of Rs.5618/- is on the higher side. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned Award carefully. 8. PW1, HC Rajiv Kumar, proved copy of FIR No.138 dated 19.6.2011 vide Ext.PW1/A. PW2, Jai Devi, led her evidence by way of filing of the affidavit, Ext.PW2/A. According to her, her husband died in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2. PW3, Mittar Lal, who was an eye witness of the accident, led his evidence by way of filing an affidavit, Ext.PW3/A. According to him, he was going on foot along with deceased and when they reached near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, bus No. UA-07M-4166 being driven by respondent No.1 came from Paonta side and hit the deceased. The accident, according to him, took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. He also lodged the FIR in the matter. 9. Respondent No.2, Dhan Parkash, appeared as RW1. He denied the accident. According to him, he was prosecuted in a case under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in the court of CJM, Nahan. He was acquitted vide judgment, Ext. RA. 10. It is duly established on the basis of statement of PW3, Mittar Lal and contents of the FIR, Ext.PW1/A that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 11. The deceased was 65 years old at the time of accident. His monthly income was Rs.8428/-as per statement of pension, Ext.PW2/C. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal living expenses. The contribution of the deceased for the claimant was assessed at Rs.5618/-. The multiplier of 7 applied by the learned Tribunal is proper. Learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned award rendered by the learned Tribunal. 12. 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 disposed of. No order as to costs.