Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 839 (HP)

Sama Devi v. Narinder Singh

2014-07-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ (oral Both these appeals are outcome of a common award dated 6th January, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, in Claim Petition No. 29-S/2 of 2005/04, titled Smt. Sama Devi & another versus Sh. Narinder Singh & another, whereby a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and mother of the deceased and the National Insurance Company, being the insurer of the vehicle, was saddled with liability, for short the “impugned award”. BRIEF FACTS: 2. Claimant, Smt. Sama Devi and Kumari Anshu, appellants in FAO No. 40/2007 and respondents No. 1 & 2 in FAO No. 194 of 2007, have invoked jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III), Shimla, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.35 lacs with 12% interest per annum, as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition, on the ground that Ram Krishan died in a motor-vehicular accident, which occurred on 1.1.2003, at about 9.30 p.m., at a distance of about 26 kms from Kandaghat towards Chail, while driving vehicle-Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-01-3310; the deceased was getting Rs.4,000/- per month as salary and Rs.100/-as daily allowance from his employer/owner, namely, Narinder Singh, at the time of accident and they have been rendered hapless and helpless. 3. The Insurer-National Insurance Company and the owner have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 4. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 12.9.2005: “1. Whether the death of deceased late Sh. Ram Krishan was due to the negligence of respondent No. 1 in not properly maintaining the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-01-3310? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the deceased was himself responsible for his death while driving the offending vehicle and the petition is not maintainable as such? OPR-2 4. Whether there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and if so, its effect? OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2 6. Relief” 5. OPR-2 4. Whether there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and if so, its effect? OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2 6. Relief” 5. Claimants have examined six witnesses and claimant Smt. Sama Devi also appeared in the witness box. The owner also appeared in the witness box and the insurer has examined Shri Roop Kumar in support of its defence. 6. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of accident and held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of ‘18’ and also granted Rs.33000/- under the head of treatment, love and affection and other heads, details of which are given in para-19 of the impugned award and further held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and the insurer was saddled with liability. 7. The owner has not questioned the impugned award. The impugned award is questioned by the claimants on the ground of adequacy of compensation. The insurer has also questioned the same on the ground that it cannot be saddled with liability. 8. I have gone through the impugned award, pleadings and the evidence on record. Issue No. 1. 9. There is ample evidence on the record to the effect that the accident is the outcome of the said motor-vehicular accident. However, the respondents have not questioned the said fact. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 3. 10. Issue No. 3 is covered by the findings returned on issue No. 1. However, the insurer has not led any evidence to prove this issue. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue against the insurer and in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 4. 11. The insurer has also not led any evidence to prove that the owner-insured has committed any breach of the Insurance Policy. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. Issue No. 5. 12. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue against the insurer and in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 4. 11. The insurer has also not led any evidence to prove that the owner-insured has committed any breach of the Insurance Policy. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. Issue No. 5. 12. No evidence has been led by the insurer to prove that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time, i.e. the date of the accident. Thus the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. Issue No. 2. 13. The claimants have proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and also Rs. 100/-as daily allowance. Thus, they have proved that the monthly income of the deceased was at least Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal has fallen in error and wrongly held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 14. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, 1/4th of the monthly income of the deceased was to be deducted as his personal expenses. Thus, it can safely be held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘18’ as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”. The Tribunal has also granted Rs.33,000/- in lump-sum, under the heads of treatment, transport charges, love and affection, loss of consortium etc., which I deem just and proper compensation under the said heads. 15. In the given circumstances, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. The Tribunal has also granted Rs.33,000/- in lump-sum, under the heads of treatment, transport charges, love and affection, loss of consortium etc., which I deem just and proper compensation under the said heads. 15. In the given circumstances, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000 x 18= Rs.6,48,000/- under the head “loss of dependency” and Rs.33,000/- under the various heads as awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award, thus total amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,81,000/-with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 16. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company pleaded that the deceased was employee of owner Narinder Singh, thus, the claim petition was not maintainable, in terms of Section 167 of the MV Act. 17. In terms of the mandate of Section 167 of the MV Act, a workman has option to file a claim petition before under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or under the MV Act. It appears that the claimants have exercised option under the MV Act. The claimants cannot be thrown out, at this stage, on such a plea. Even otherwise, admittedly, the deceased was a workman/driver under the employment of employer/owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Narinder Singh. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petition is maintainable. 18. The insurer to deposit the balance/enhanced amount with interest within six weeks before the Registry. The Registry is directed to release the amount, if any, already deposited and the enhanced amount, on its deposition, in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants i.e. FAO No. 40 of 2007 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, i.e. FAO No. 194 of 2007 is dismissed. Copy of the order be placed in each of the files. 20. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on record.