Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1189 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Neelam Sharma

2015-08-28

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of the instant appeal, the insurer has questioned the award, dated 15th September, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(III), Shimla, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.60-S/2 of 2005/02, titled Neelam Sharma and another vs. Dev Krishan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.11,20,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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/appellant was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). 2. The insured/owner, the driver and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has questioned the impugned award on three grounds, namely – i) the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle; ii) the claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently; and iii) the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 4. I have gone through the impugned award and the record of the case. The driving licence of the driver has been proved on record as RW-1/A. The driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle and also he was competent to drive a light motor vehicle as also a passenger vehicle. The driver was also duly authorized to drive a transport vehicle, as is evident from the endorsement made on the driving licence Ext.RW-1/A. The Tribunal has rightly held that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is turned down. 5. Coming to the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimants have examined Neelam Sharma, Dinesh Kumar, Gian Chand and Ramesh Lal, as PW-1 to PW-4, respectively, who have stated with one voice that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 5. Coming to the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimants have examined Neelam Sharma, Dinesh Kumar, Gian Chand and Ramesh Lal, as PW-1 to PW-4, respectively, who have stated with one voice that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Copy of the FIR was also proved on record as Ext.P-1, a perusal of which shows that a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Meer Chand, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the second point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected being devoid of any force. 7. As far as third point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is the outcome of issue No.2 framed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, was 45 years and the Tribunal has fallen in error in applying the multiplier of 15. In terms of Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the law laid down by 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, multiplier of 13 was applicable. 8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent that instead of multiplier 15, multiplier 13 is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.6000 x 12 x 13 = Rs.9,36,000/- under the head loss of source of dependency and Rs. 40,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, which, in all, comes to Rs.9,76,000/-. The above amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award, after making calculations as indicated above, and the excess amount, if any, deposited by the insurer/appellant be released in its favour through payee’s account cheque. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.