Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 556 (HP)

Mohan Lal v. Balbir Sanjhta

2014-05-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) The appellant-claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), for enhancement of compensation being inadequate, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2.Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants have filed a Claim Petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition, on the ground that Rashwanti, wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimants No.2 and 3, was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.HP-10-0933, being driven by driver, namely, Diwan Chand, (respondent No.3), rashly and negligently, met with an accident near Madharli nalllah, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries, was taken to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, fromwhere was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and ultimately, she succumbed to the injuries. FIR No.100/99, dated 30.6.1999, was registered at Police Station, Rohru under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3.Respondents put in appearance and filed objections to the Claim Petition. 4.On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether deceased Rashwanti died on account of rash and negligent act of driving of respondent No.3, who was driving bus No.HP-10-0933 on 30.6.1999 at Gadhari nullah in a rash and negligent manner as alleged? OPP 2.If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as alleged? OPP 3.Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by the respondent No.3 without a valid and effective driving license and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR 4.Whether the bus in question was being driven without proper permit and fitness certificate as alleged? OPR 5.Whether the petition is vague and lacking in necessary and material particular? OPR 6.Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of real owner of the vehicle as alleged? OPR-4 7.Whether the petition is collusive as it has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1 to3, as alleged? OPR-4. 8.Relief.” 5.Claimants, in order to prove their case, have examined as many as 7 witnesses in all, while respondent No.1 (owner of the offending bus) appeared in the witness box as RW-1. The other respondents, including the insurer, have chosen not to lead any evidence. 6. OPR-4. 8.Relief.” 5.Claimants, in order to prove their case, have examined as many as 7 witnesses in all, while respondent No.1 (owner of the offending bus) appeared in the witness box as RW-1. The other respondents, including the insurer, have chosen not to lead any evidence. 6. The Tribunal after examining the pleadings and the evidence, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants. The income of the deceased was determined as Rs.1,500/- per month and after applying the multiplier ‘14’, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till its realization. The insurer was saddled with the liability to indemnify the impugned award. 7. The owner/insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground and the same has attained finality insofar as it relates to them. Thus, the only question arises for determination in the present appeal is – whether the amount of compensation is inadequate or otherwise? 8. Admittedly, Smt.Rashwanti was a housewife, was maintaining the household chores and was looking after her minor children and husband. Due to the aforesaid accident, the husband has lost matrimonial life and the minor sons and daughter have lost their mother. Money cannot compensate love and affection of mother. A mother maintains the matrimonial home, brings up her children and shapes them. I wonder how and why the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/- per month. If one has to engage a labourer or an attendant in order to look after the household chores and maintain the children, the amount which the person has to pay is not less than Rs.5,000/- per month. Even a labourer, coolie or a daily wager earns not less than Rs.200/- per day. Thus, the minimum income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. But the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1 ,500/- per month. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd out of the said income, loss of the source of dependency can be said to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd out of the said income, loss of the source of dependency can be said to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9.The deceased was 33 years of age and the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘14’, which is correctly applied. Therefore, it is held that the multiplier of ‘14’ is just and proper multiplier applicable in this case. 10.Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.36,000 x 14 = Rs.5,04,000/-. In addition to that, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500 under the heads ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of estate’, which have not been granted by the Tribunal. The claimants are also held entitled to the expenses which they have borne while taking the deceased to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and thereafter to PGI, Chandigarh, for which the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/ 11. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,23,500/- (Rs.5,04,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.10,000/-), with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. The compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified accordingly. 12.At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants stated at the Bar that the minor daughter (claimant No.3) has died during the pendency of the appeal and her share may be apportioned in favour of the remaining claimants. His statement is taken on record. Therefore, it is ordered that the amount awarded in favour of claimant No.3 be paid to the minor son and the same be deposited in his name in terms of the impugned award. Rest of the amount be released in favour of the husband of the deceased strictly in terms of the impugned award. 13.Appeal is allowed, as indicated above, and stands disposed of accordingly.