Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1099 (HP)

Raj Kiran v. Rattan Lal

2015-08-14

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17.11.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MAC No. 57 of 2006, titled Sh. Raj Kiran and others versus Sh. Rattan Lal and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.9,43,880/- with 9% interest per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 5. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 6. In order to determine this issue, brief facts of the case are required to be given: 7. Deceased Baljeet Singh became victim of a vehicular accident, which was caused by Surjeet Singh driver of Truck No. HP-31-A-2067 while driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently on 26.5.2006 at N.H. 21 near Chharol, Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. 8. The claimants had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 9. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents. 10. The Tribunal, after discussing the evidence held in para 10 of the impugned judgment that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,11,735.93 per annum, as per the income tax return Ext. RA. It has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.74490/- per annum. The multiplier of “12” was applied. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the loss of dependency and multiplier, for the following reasons. 11. The date of birth of the deceased as disclosed in matriculation certificate Ext. PW1/A is 4.8.1964, meaning thereby the age of deceased was 41 years at the time of the accident and multiplier of “14” was to be applied in terms of Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. But the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of “12”. 12. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd only but in terms of para 30 of the Sarla Verma’s judgment, supra, 1/5th was to be deducted because the claimants are more than four. It is apt to reproduce para 30 of the said judgment herein: “30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 13. Thus, by taking the round income of deceased as Rs.1,12,000/- per annum, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.89,600x14= Total Rs.12,54,400/-. 14. The Tribunal has also awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, on account of consortium and love and affection. The said amount is reasonable in view of the latest judgments delivered by the Apex Court. 15. Having said so, the total compensation to the tune of Rs.12,54,400+Rs.50,000/-, total Rs.13,04,400/-, is awarded in favour of the claimants with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 16. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount in the Registry within six weeks from today. 17. The Registry, on deposit of the amount is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 18. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.