Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 981 (HP)

Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Yusaf Raja

2014-07-25

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.(Oral): Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 16th February, 2010, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.62/2008/07, titled as Yusaf Raja and another versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs.3,77,000/-stands awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 and 2 herein), and against the appellants, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24th June, 2007, at about 5.30 p.m., outside Nalagarh Bus Stand, the original respondent No.3 Chet Ram, driver of original respondents No.1 and 2 (appellants herein) had driven the offending bus bearing registration No.HP 12 4067 rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which Parveen Begum, mother of the claimants, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same in PGI, Chandigarh. The claimants have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 3. The driver (respondent No.3 herein) and the HRTC, being the owner of the bus (appellants herein), filed objections to the Claim Petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Smt.Parveen Begum died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 24.6.07 outside Nalagarh bus sand within the jurisdiction of P.S. Nalagarh at about 5.30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle No.HP12-4067?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being legal heirs of deceased, are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 4. Relief.” 5. In support of their claim, the claimants have examined PW-1 Vipin Raj, PW-2 Malika, PW-3 Shamim Akhatar, and PW-4 Arjun Singh, while the respondents examined the driver of the offending bus, namely, Chet Ram, as RW-1. Claimants have also placed on record documentary evidence i.e. legal heir certificate Ext.PA, copy of jamabandi Ext.PB, post mortem report Ext.PW-1/A, copy of FIR No.159/07, dated 24.6.2007 Ext.PW-3/A, copy of Pariwar Register Ext.PW-4/A, and death certificate Ext.PW-4/B. 6. Claimants have also placed on record documentary evidence i.e. legal heir certificate Ext.PA, copy of jamabandi Ext.PB, post mortem report Ext.PW-1/A, copy of FIR No.159/07, dated 24.6.2007 Ext.PW-3/A, copy of Pariwar Register Ext.PW-4/A, and death certificate Ext.PW-4/B. 6. On the other hand, original respondents (appellants and respondent No.3 herein) have placed on record affidavit of Chet Ram Ext.RW-1/A and copy of the driving licence Ext.RW-1/B. 7. After scanning the entire evidence, the Tribunal decided all the issues against the appellants and respondent No.3 (driver), and in favour of the claimants. The claimants and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 8. The Tribunal has categorically recorded the findings that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 i.e. the driver of the offending bus, who has chosen not to question the said findings. Can the appellants, being the employer, question the impugned award, which is the outcome of negligence on the part of its driver? The answer is in the negative. 9. I have gone through the evidence and am of the considered view that the claimants have proved on record, by leading oral as well as documentary evidence, that the driver Chet Ram had driven the offending bus rashly and negligently on 24.6.2007, at about 5.30 p.m., outside Nalagarh Bus Stand, and caused the accident. Accordingly, the findings recorded 10. The original respondents have also failed to prove that the Claim Petition is not maintainable. I have gone through the record and the claim petition, a perusal of which makes it abundantly clear that the Claim Petition, on the face of it, is maintainable. Therefore, Issue No.3 is also rightly decided by the Tribunal against the respondents and in favour of the claimants. 11. Coming to issue No.2, the claimants have proved on record that in the aforesaid accident, they have lost their mother. It was concluded by the Tribunal that the deceased might be doing household work and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses, it was held that the Claimants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be excessive. After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses, it was held that the Claimants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be excessive. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 23 years at the time of accident, multiplier ‘13’ was also rightly applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal under this issue are also upheld. 12. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and accordingly the appeal merits to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.