Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1139 (HP)

Rajinder Nath Nehru v. Amit Chadha

2015-08-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of the appeal as well as the writ petition is the award, dated 10th March, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.70-S/2 of 2006, titled Rajinder Nath Nehru and another vs. Amit Chadha and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.12,10,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the Claimants filed the appeal being FAO No.415 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation, while the insurer laid challenge to the impugned award by way of writ petition (CWP No.1851 of 2009). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 10.11.2006, the deceased Smt.Vidya Devi (wife of Claimant No.1 and mother of Claimant No.2) boarded the bus bearing No.HP-63-3605 from Himland to Kasumpti, which was being driven by the driver, namely, Susheel Singh rashly and negligently. It was alleged that when the said bus reached at Talland Chowk, the driver of the offending bus tried to overtake two buses in excessive speed as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the speeding bus, sustained injuries and later on succumbed to the same. The deceased was serving in the H.P. State Forest Corporation as Senior Assistant and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.17,539/-. Thus, the Claim Petition filed by the Claimants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25.00 lacs. 4. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties the issues were struck and the evidence was led by the parties. 5. I have gone through the impugned award and the record. 6. The Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate of the deceased Ext.PW-1/C held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.17,539/-. However, the Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs.1250/- from the monthly salary of the deceased, being Conveyance Allowance (Rs.250), Capital Allowance (Rs.100) and House Rent Allowance (Rs.900). 6. The Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate of the deceased Ext.PW-1/C held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.17,539/-. However, the Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs.1250/- from the monthly salary of the deceased, being Conveyance Allowance (Rs.250), Capital Allowance (Rs.100) and House Rent Allowance (Rs.900). Therefore, after deducting the said amount of Rs.1250/- being received by the deceased as Allowances, the Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.16,300/-, from which amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereby worked out the loss of source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,29,816/- per annum. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of hearing, has argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting the amount of allowances received by the deceased at the time of her death, from her monthly income. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunil Sharma vs. Bachitar Singh, (2011) 2 CCR(SC) 1170. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 11 of the said decision hereunder: “11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased…………….”. 8. Applying the ratio, the Tribunal has fallen in error while deducting Rs.1250/-, being received by the deceased as Allowances, from the monthly income of the deceased and the impugned award needs to be modified accordingly. As a result, I hold that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.17,539/-, which can be said to be Rs.17,540/- after rounding off, and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards her personal expenses, the loss of source of dependency, per month, comes to Rs.11,693/-. 9. Coming to the question of multiplier, admittedly, the age of the deceased, at the time of death, was 53 years. 9. Coming to the question of multiplier, admittedly, the age of the deceased, at the time of death, was 53 years. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 9 and the same is upheld keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, and the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. Having said so, the Claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.11693x 12 x 9 = Rs.12,62,844/-, under the head loss of source of dependency, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal needs no interference and the same is upheld. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above, and the appeal filed by the Claimants (FAO No.415 of 2009) is disposed of. 12. The learned counsel for the insurer argued that the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation and no other ground was pressed into service. Therefore, the writ petition (CWP No.1851 of 2009), filed by the insurer, deserves to be dismissed in view of my above findings, and the same is dismissed accordingly.