Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1853 (HP)

Satya Narayan v. Gauri Dutt

2015-12-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. All these appeals are the outcome of one vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by Shri Jai Kishan, while driving Bus No.HP-14-4149 rashly and negligently, on 1st November, 2007, at Kandaghat, District Solan. Qua the accident, FIR Ext.PW-1/A was registered at Police Station, Kandaghat. In the accident, the claimant Satya Narain sustained injuries, wife and son of Satya Narain, namely, Sunita and Pankaj, respectively, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same lateron. 2. The claimant Satya Narain filed claim Petition No.3FTC/2 of 2008, titled Satya Narain vs. Gauri Dutt and others, for compensation to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs, on account of the injuries sustained by him. Claimants i.e. Satya Narain and two minor daughters filed Claim Petition No.4FTC/2 of 2008, titled Satya Narain and others vs. Gauri Dutt and others, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs on account of death of son of claimant No.1 and brother of claimants No.2 and 3, while Claim Petition No.2FTC/2 of 2008, titled Satya Narain and others vs. Gauri Dutt and others, was filed by the claimants, being the husband and minor daughters of deceased Sunita, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.12.00 lacs. 3. All the three claim petitions came to be determined by the Tribunal by three different awards, dated 14th August, 2008, and Compensation to the tune of Rs.99,344/-, Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.3,18,000/- came to be awarded in Claim Petitions No.3FTC/2 of 2008, (subject matter of FAO No.644 of 2008), No.4FTC/2 of 2008, (subject matter of FAO No.645 of 2008) and No.2FTC/2 of 2008, (subject matter of FAO No.646 of 2008), respectively, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, till realization, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned awards). 4. Owner/insured, driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, the same have attained finality so far as these relate to them. The claimants have questioned the impugned awards on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Thus, the only question to be determined in all the three appeals is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded is meager or otherwise. FAO No.644 of 2008: 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager and merits to be enhanced. 7. 5. Thus, the only question to be determined in all the three appeals is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded is meager or otherwise. FAO No.644 of 2008: 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager and merits to be enhanced. 7. On a bare perusal of the impugned award one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the compensation amount, under the heads ‘loss of earnings, medical charges, attendant charges, special diet, transportation charges and removal of ankle plate’, has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. However, the amount awarded under the heads ‘pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life’, is too meager. 8. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, AIR 1995 SC 755 and 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, the amount awarded under the heads ‘pain and suffering, and loss of amenities’ is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-, in addition to the amount already awarded under these heads by the Tribunal. 9. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is modified and the claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,49,344/-, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks and on deposit, the Registry is directed release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. FAO No. 645 of 2008: 10. By the medium of instant appeal, the claimants, being the father and sisters of deceased Pankaj, aged 6 years at the time of accident, have sought enhancement of compensation. 11. I have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation under various heads, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be inadequate. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award. FAO No.646 of 2008: 13. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award. FAO No.646 of 2008: 13. In the instant appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the income of the deceased Sunita Devi and also has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16. 14. The Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was a housewife. The income of the deceased, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be less than Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd, the loss of source of dependency can be said to be Rs.2,000/- per month. 15. Coming to the multiplier, in view of the law expounded by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded a sum of Rs.2,000 x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,84,000/- under the head ‘loss of source of dependency’. In addition, a sum of Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- each is also awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 16. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned awarded is modified and the claimants are awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,84,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.4,24,000/-, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount strictly in terms of the impugned award. 17. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.