Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 180 (HP)

Harpal Singh v. Ram Pal @ Sanju

2015-03-13

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una in MAC Petition No. 15 of 2006, titled Harpal Singh versus Ram Pal @ Sanju and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,90,320/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant/ appellants herein, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant had filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, being the victim of vehicular accident on the ground that driver namely, Ram Pal has driven Mohindra Pick-up bearing registration No. HP36-4320 rashly and negligently at Kotla Kalan and hit scooter bearing registration No. HP-20A-8077, on which deceased was traveling, at about 6:40 p.m. near Arnila Bazar, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. Respondents resisted and contested the claim petition and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether Kanta Devi died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Jeep (No.HP-36-4320) by Ram Pal (respondent 1) on January 21, 2006? OPP. (ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the accident was attributable to rashness and negligence of the deceased. If so, tow hat effect. OPP (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the scooter (No. HP- 20A-8077) OPR (v) Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. OPR-3 (vi) Whether the jeep in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OPR. (vii) Relief. 4. Parties led evidence. All issues were decided against the respondents and in favour of the claimant. 5. Respondents have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. The claimants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or otherwise. 6. 5. Respondents have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. The claimants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or otherwise. 6. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding the compensation, which, on the face of it, is illegal for the following reasons. 7. Admittedly, deceased was a government employee and his gross pay was Rs.7535/- as per Ext. PW2/A, salary certificate, but the Tribunal has deducted subscriptions which is not permissible. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in assessing the loss of dependency. The income of the deceased was to be taken as Rs.7535/- at that point of time. 8. Keeping in view the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandate rendered by the apex Court in the case Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, 1/3rd was to be deducted. But the Tribunal has deducted one half. Therefore, it is held that the claimant/appellants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month, i.e. 5000x12=Rs. 60,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the just and appropriate multiplier of “11”, is upheld. Viewed thus, claimants are held entitled to Rs.60,000x11=Rs.6,60,000/- as compensation. 9. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from today, within six weeks from today. On deposit, the same be released to the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above. Send down the record forthwith.