Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1465 (HP)

Sunita v. Vinay Nanda

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) By the medium of this appeal, the claimants have questioned the judgment and award dated 17.10.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, in MAC Petition No. 47-S/2 of 2007, titled Smt. Sunita and others versus Sh. Vinay Nanda and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, 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. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is meager or otherwise. 4. I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded is meager and merits to be enhanced for the following reasons. 5. The Tribunal in paras 23 and 24 of the impugned award has held that the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident and was in the employment of a Government contractor Vishal Shankta. He was getting salary to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month. The salary certificate has been duly proved which is Ext.PW3/E. The Tribunal has also discussed in paras 26 to 29 of the impugned award that the deceased was owner of an orchard and was getting the sale price of the apple to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- per year, as is evident from Ext. PW3/K to Ext. PW3/N. 6. After making a guess work, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that though the orchard is there but the claimants have lost, at least, the services of the deceased and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month but has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd, which is not permissible and also fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.4500/-, in view of the discussion made in the award and also herein. 7. Having said so, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3000/-+4500 i.e. Rs.7500/- per month. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in applying the multiplier. However, the insurer has not questioned the same thus, it is upheld. 7. Having said so, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3000/-+4500 i.e. Rs.7500/- per month. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in applying the multiplier. However, the insurer has not questioned the same thus, it is upheld. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.7500 x 12 x 15, i.e., total to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest, from the date of claim petition, as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Having said so, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced, as indicated hereinabove. 9. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount in the Registry within six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 10. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.