Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1318 (HP)

Sunita v. Self Help Group village Panesh

2015-09-18

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) By the medium of FAO No. 436 of 2008, the claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short the Act, against the judgment and award dated 6.5.2008 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No. 28-S/2 of 2006 titled Smt. Sunita versus Self Help Group village Panesh and others, for short the impugned award, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Respondents have filed cross-objections. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the vehicle belongs to Self Help Group village Panesh and they are neither owners nor possessors of the vehicle. The argument is not tenable for the reasons that they have executed a power of attorney consisting of two pages which is at page 95-96 of the record file which do disclose that the respondents have admitted that they are the members of the said group and are manning Self Help Group Village Panesh and are in possession of the offending vehicle and running the same and they have also power to ply the said vehicle, appoint driver and conductor and also deposit taxes whichever is payable. The learned counsel was not able to deny the same. 4. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned award right from paras 8 to 18. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion and saddled the owner with the liability. The Tribunal has also discussed the evidence and held that the driver of the offending vehicle has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. The rash and negligent driving is not in question because the insurer has not disputed the rashness and negligence of the driver. Having said so, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 5. Issues No. 3 and 4. Respondents have failed to prove these issues. Even otherwise, claimants are within their rights to file claim petition being the victims of the vehicular accident. Having said so, findings returned on issue No. 3 are upheld. 6. It was for the respondents to prove that the claim petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, has not led any evidence. Even otherwise, the police report can be treated as claim petition. The procedural technicalities cannot be a ground to defeat the clam petition. Having said so, findings returned on issue No. 3 are upheld. 6. It was for the respondents to prove that the claim petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, has not led any evidence. Even otherwise, the police report can be treated as claim petition. The procedural technicalities cannot be a ground to defeat the clam petition. Thus, findings returned on issue No. 4 are also upheld. 7. Issue No. 2. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 12, 14 and 16 of the impugned award and held that the deceased was 50 years of age and the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- per year and income from the hotel business has been assessed as Rs.73100/- and that from the agriculture as Rs.1,00,000/- and after making deduction, the claimants are held to have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.86,000/-. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the impugned award herein. “16.So far as the loss of income from the agriculture pursuits is concerned, it can only be with regard to the supervision/labour which deceased used to put as with the death, the land has not been destroyed and the agricultural work now can be got done from the labourers by the dependents who will inherit this land. This loss, therefore, can be taken as Rs. 5000/- a month or say Rs. 60,000/- per annum. Taking the income of the deceased from hotel business as given in the income tax return Ext. PD and adding the amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the income from the hotel business, the total income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,33,000/- per annum or day Rs. 1,30,000/-. To find out the annual loss of income to the petitioners, 1/3rd of it which approximately comes to Rs. 44,000/- is to be deducted towards the expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself for his upkeep. Thus, the annual loss of dependency to the petitioners would come to Rs. 1,20,000- Rs.44,000 = Rs.86,000/-. To arrive at the total loss of dependency a suitable multiplier has to be applied. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the petitioners as one of them has been stated to be minor, application of multiplier of 9 would be just and reasonable. 1,20,000- Rs.44,000 = Rs.86,000/-. To arrive at the total loss of dependency a suitable multiplier has to be applied. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the petitioners as one of them has been stated to be minor, application of multiplier of 9 would be just and reasonable. Applying this multiplier the total loss of dependency of the petitioners would come to Rs. 86,000 X 9 = Rs. 7,74,000/-. Apart from it the petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral and other incidental expenses. Therefore, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,94,000/- in all as compensation.” 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation, cannot be said to be either excessive or inadequate in any way. Accordingly the impugned award is upheld and the appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed. FAO No. 461/2008. 9. By the medium of FAO No. 461 of 2008, the claimant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short the Act, against the judgment and award dated 6.5.2008 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No. 55-S/2 of 2006 titled Ms. Lata Sharma versus Self Help Group Village Panesh and others on the grounds of adequacy of compensation, for short the impugned award, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 10. Respondents have filed cross-objections. 11. Issues No. 1, 3 and 4 stand decided in terms of the discussions made in paras 4 to 6 supra. 12. Issue No. 2. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 12 to 17 of the impugned award and held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.75,000/- as compensation in all with costs assessed at Rs.1,000/ and interest @ 9% per annum. The amount awarded is too meager, cannot be said to be excessive, in any way. 13. Accordingly the impugned award is upheld and the appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed. 14. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant(s), strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque. 15. Both the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed accordingly. 16. 13. Accordingly the impugned award is upheld and the appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed. 14. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant(s), strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque. 15. Both the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed accordingly. 16. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.