Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1600 (HP)

Kanso Devi v. Laxman

2015-10-30

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award, dated 10th June, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla, (for short, ?the Tribunal?) in MAC Petition No.69-S/2 of 2006/05, titled Kanso Devi and others vs. Laxman Singh and another, whereby a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the ?impugned award?). 2. The insurer and the owner of the vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Only the claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question needs to be answered in this appeal is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 4. To determine the above issue, it is necessary to have a flash back of the facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 5. Facts, as pleaded, are that on 8th September, 2005, the deceased Rameshwer, driver of Tipper No.HP-26-0343, was unloading the said Tipper. In the process, the rear side of the Tipper got locked as a result of which the said Tipper rolled down the road and fell into Satluj River and the said Rameshwer died in the accident. Claimants, being mother, widow and sons/daughters of the deceased Rameshwer, invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.12.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 6. Respondents i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: ?1. Whether on 8.9.2005 Sh.Rameshwer died due to latent defect in vehicle No.HP-26-0343? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of vehicle No.HP-26-0343 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether the vehicle was being driven without fitness certificate? OPR 5. Relief.? 8. OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of vehicle No.HP-26-0343 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether the vehicle was being driven without fitness certificate? OPR 5. Relief.? 8. Parties led evidence and the Tribunal under issue No.1 held that the accident had occurred due to the latent defect in the vehicle and thus, saddled the insurer with the liability. Insurer has failed to prove issues No.3 and 4. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.1, 3 and 4 are upheld, though not in dispute. 9. As aforesaid, the dispute in the present appeal is viz. a viz. part of issue No.2 i.e. whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 10. Admittedly, the age of the deceased, at the time of accident was 45 years. The Tribunal has fallen in error in applying the multiplier of 12, whereas, in terms of Schedule-II of the Act and the dictum of the Apex Court in 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, multiplier of 13 was applicable. Thus, it is held that multiplier of 13 is just and appropriate in the instant case. 11. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was a driver by profession, was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. However, as per the owner of the offending vehicle (original respondent No.1), the deceased was getting Rs.3,900/- per month as salary and in addition to that, Rs.60/- per day as charges of meals i.e. Rs.1800/- per month. Thus, the total monthly income of the deceased can be said to be not less than Rs.3900 + Rs.1800 = Rs.5700/-. 12. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, while keeping in view the number of dependants, as has been held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 1/5th from the total income of the deceased was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. 13. 12. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, while keeping in view the number of dependants, as has been held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 1/5th from the total income of the deceased was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. 13. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be concluded that the claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4560/-, say Rs.4600/- per month. Thus, the total loss of source of dependency to the claimants is worked out to Rs.4600 x 12 x 13 = Rs.7,17,600/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,600/- under the head =loss of consortium', which amount is also on the lower side. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded under the heads =loss of love and affection', =loss of consortium', =loss of estate' and =funeral expenses'. 15. Thus, a sum of Rs.7,57,600/- is awarded in favour of the claimants. The enhanced amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till deposit. 16. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award stands modified, as indicated above. 17. The enhanced amount, alongwith interest, be deposited by the insurer within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award.