Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1347 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Priya

2015-09-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Insurance Company against the award, dated 1st January, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No.9-S/2 of 2008, filed by the claimants (respondents No.2 to 5 herein), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.14,70,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, was granted in favour of the claimants and the petitioner was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. It is a moot question – Whether the writ petition is maintainable. When the writ petition was filed, at that point of time, the awards passed by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), were being questioned by the medium of the writ petition. Now, the law has gone sea change and Section 173 of the Act provides for filing of appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal under the Act. 3. Granting of compensation in Claim Petitions is a social legislation and is for the benefit of the claimants. Procedural laws, wrangles and tangles, technicalities and niceties have no role to play. Therefore, we deem it proper to determine the writ petition without going into the maintainability thereof. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned award is on the higher side and deserves to be reduced considerably. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award for the reasons mentioned therein. 5. Heard. We have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident, which finding of the Tribunal has not been questioned by the claimants. Thus, it is held that the deceased was 35 years of age, when he died in the accident. 6. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, it is held that the deceased was 35 years of age, when he died in the accident. 6. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Having regard to the mandate 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, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants as Rs.6666/-, rounded off Rs.6,700/-. However, it appears that the Tribunal has fallen in error in applying the multiplier of 17. 7. Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra and Schedule 2 appended with the Act, we are of the considered view that the multiplier of 15 is just and appropriate. 8. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.6700 x 12 x 15 = Rs.12,06,000/-. In addition to it, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’ ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘loss of consortium’. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.12,06,000 + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.12,46,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. We also deem it proper to award Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs to be borne by the petitioner-Company. 9. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award and the excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the petitioner-Company through payee’s account cheque. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMPs, if any.