Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1598 (HP)

Pushp Lata v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.

2015-10-30

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J Both these appeals are the outcome of one award, dated 1st July, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.11 of 2007, titled Pushp Lata and others vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.8,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). Accordingly, both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal. 2. FAO No.560 of 2008 has been filed by the claimants on the ground of adequacy of compensation, while the insurer has laid challenge to the impugned award by filing FAO No.171 of 2009 on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and the insurer was wrongly saddled with the liability. 3. Thus, the only question needs to be determined is – Whether the amount awarded is just and appropriate? 4. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have led evidence and have sought to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the tuitions. In addition, it was claimed that the deceased was having income from orchards also. Keeping in view the facts of the case and applying the guess work, I am of the considered view that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.6,500/- per month from tuitions. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, it can safely be held that the claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4334/- per month, say Rs.4500/-. 5. The age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier applicable was =15' in view of Schedule-II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the judgment made by the Apex Court in cases tilted as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , which decision was upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 6. 6. In view of the above, it is held that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 and instead multiplier of 15 is just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4500X12x15 = 8,10,000/- under the head loss of source of dependency. 7. Mr.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the insurer, during the course of hearing, argued that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly saddled the insurer with the liability. 8. I have gone through the record. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove issues No.3 to 5, thus has failed to discharge its onus and prove that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings. 9. As a sequel of the above discussion, the amount of compensation is reduced and accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and both the appeals are disposed of. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award and the excess amount, if any, deposited by the insurer be refunded to the insurer through payee's account cheque.