Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1858 (HP)

Kumari Sunita v. State of H. P.

2015-12-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 5th November, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 29-S/2 of 2006, titled Kumari Sunita versus The Secretary, H.P.P.W.D. & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant herein and against the respondents (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The respondents have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 5. Admittedly, the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident and was a government employee. The Tribunal has rightly taken his income as Rs. 3,000/-, in terms of para-9 of the impugned award and has deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, but has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘12’. The multiplier of ‘13’ was applicable in this case, as per the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & anoth another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 6. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,000/- x 12 = Rs. 24,000 x 13 = 3,12,000/- under the head ‘ loss of dependency’. 7. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 20,000/- under the head ‘conventional charges’, is maintained. 8. Having said so, it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,12,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- total amounting to Rs. 2,000/- x 12 = Rs. 24,000 x 13 = 3,12,000/- under the head ‘ loss of dependency’. 7. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 20,000/- under the head ‘conventional charges’, is maintained. 8. Having said so, it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,12,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- total amounting to Rs. 3,32,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. 9. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 10. The respondents-State is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of six weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing in the account. 10. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.