Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1792 (HP)

Roshan Lal v. Ashwani Kumar

2015-12-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award, dated 6th November 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, (for short, “the Tribunal”), in MAC Petition No.123-MAC/2/2006, titled Roshan Lal and others vs. Ashwani Kumar and another, whereby the Claim Petition came to be dismissed, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. While dismissing the claim petition, the main ground weighed with the Tribunal was that the Claimants had not proved that Ashwani Kumar had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on the relevant date. 3. On the last date of hearing, it was pointed out that an FIR bearing No.254/2006 under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered in regard to the accident in question. Therefore, Mr.J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, was asked to verify and file a detailed report as to against whom the final report was prepared and presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Today, Mr.V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that the challan was presented before the court of Judicial Magistrate against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Ashwani Kumar, and the trial has resulted into conviction of the said driver. He has also placed on record a copy of the judgment passed in the criminal case and also the copy of the FIR, made part of the file. 5. Thus, from the above, it can safely be concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Ashwani Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on the relevant date. 6. Next question which arises for determination is – To which amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? 7. Admittedly, the deceased, namely, Biru Ram, was unmarried and was brother of the claimants. It has been pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was living with them and they were dependant upon him. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation. 8. The claimants in the claim petition have specifically pleaded that the deceased was 60 years at the time of death and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from running a Karyana shop. Ms.Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the deceased was not running a Karyana shop and thus, the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased. Ms.Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the deceased was not running a Karyana shop and thus, the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased. 9. In today’s scenario, even a labourer is earning not less than Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, after exercising the guess work, I deem it proper to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of his death and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 10. Coming to the applicability of multiplier, the age of the deceased, as pleaded, at the time of accident, was 60 years. As per schedule 2 appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also as per the ratio laid down by 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, multiplier of ‘5’ is just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the instant case. 11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000 x 12 x 5 = Rs.1,80,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the impugned award till realisation. 13. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. Therefore, the insurer is saddled with the liability. 14. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount alongwith interest, as awarded, within a period of 8 weeks from today and on deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimants in equal shares, after proper identification. 15. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of.