Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1793 (HP)

Babita Devi v. Roop Chand

2015-12-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30th June, 2014, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition (RBT) No. 51-K/II/13/10, titled Smt. Babita Devi & others versus Sh. Roop Chand & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,03,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants herein and the insurer-appellant herein, was saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 3. The insured-owner, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 4. There is no dispute on issues No 1, 3 to 6. The only dispute viz-a-viz is on issue No. 2, that too, partly. 5. The only question to be determined in this appeal is –whether the award amount is just and adequate? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 6. The Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased was 38 years, at the time of accident, which is not in dispute. Accordingly, it is held that the age of the deceased was 38 years and the age of the claimants, i.e. Smt. Babita (widow), Anil Kumar (minor) and Abhay Kumar (minor) was 33 years, 11 years and 8 years, respectively, at the time of accident. 7. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of ‘16’ was applicable in this case, but the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘14’. Accordingly, it is held that the multiplier of ‘16’ is just and appropriate, applied accordingly. 8. The claimants have pleaded and proved that the income of the deceased was 10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month and after making deductions held the claimants entitled to the tune of Rs. 5,250/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’, which is legally incorrect. 8. The claimants have pleaded and proved that the income of the deceased was 10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month and after making deductions held the claimants entitled to the tune of Rs. 5,250/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’, which is legally incorrect. 9. While making guess work and taking all the factors in view, it can safely be held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 6,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimed have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 10. In the given circumstances, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000 x 16= Rs.7,68,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 11. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each, under the heads of ‘conventional charges’, ‘loss of consortium’ and funeral and transpiration charges’. 12. Keeping in view the recent judgments of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, is also awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’, in favour of the claimants. 13. Thus, a sum of Rs.7,68,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs. 8,08,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimants, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. 14. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of 15. The enhanced amount, alongwith interest, be deposited by the insurer within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. 16. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.