Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1872 (HP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAJESH SHARMA

2015-12-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Sirmaur Disstrict at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 125-MAC/2 of 2005, titled Rajesh Sharma v. Ashwani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and others, for short "the Tribunal" whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.11,35,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award" for short. 2. The claimant Rajesh Sharma, being the victim of a vehicular accident, which was caused by respondent No.2-driver, namely, Sharad Kanshi Nath, while driving Truck/Dumper No. MH-12/F-8396 on 26.9.2005 at about 6 P.M. at a place known as Ganesh Vision, Akurdi, Pune due to which deceased, i.e., wife of the claimant sustained the injuries and succumbed to the same. The claimant had filed the claim petition, on the grounds taken in the claim petition. 3. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: (i) Whether Smt. Archana Rajesh Sharma sustained injuries to her person in a vehicular accident involving Damper/Truck NO. MH-12/F-8396, being owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 ion a rash or negligent manner at place known as Ganesh Vision Akurdi, Pune (Maharashtra) on dated 26.9.2005 at about 6.30 P.M. by ramming the said Damper/truck against the scooty of the deceased bearing No. MH 09-JF- 4610, which injuries proved fatal on the spot, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is prove ion affirmative, whether the petitioner being legal representative of the deceased is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the petition, as alleged? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3. (v) Relief. 4. The claimant has led the evidence. Respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimant has proved all the issues and granted the compensation, details of which have been given in para 39 of the impugned award. 6. OPR-3. (v) Relief. 4. The claimant has led the evidence. Respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimant has proved all the issues and granted the compensation, details of which have been given in para 39 of the impugned award. 6. Owner, driver, insured and claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 7. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation though this ground is not available to the insurer but while going through para 39 of the impugned award, it appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding the compensation under the head "loss of gratuitous services rendered by deceased to the petitioner". At the same time, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of "15". The multiplier of "16" was applicable while keeping in view the age of the deceased who was 26 years of age at the time of accident. She was working as Executive Officer with M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. Akurdi and her salary slip is on the record, which do disclose that her salary was Rs.7694/- per month, roughly Rs.7700/- per month. 8. I deem it proper to assess the compensation herein. ?rd was to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and claimant has lost source of income to the tune of Rs.5200/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 AIR SCW 3105, the multiplier is to be applied according to the age of the deceased. The multiplier of "16' was applicable, keeping in view Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR SCW 3120 and is accordingly applied in this case. 9. The claimant is held entitled under the head "Loss of income" to the tune of Rs.5200 x 12 x 16= Rs.9,98,400/-. 10. I hold that the claimant is also entitled to compensation under the following heads as under: (i) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs. 9. The claimant is held entitled under the head "Loss of income" to the tune of Rs.5200 x 12 x 16= Rs.9,98,400/-. 10. I hold that the claimant is also entitled to compensation under the following heads as under: (i) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 30,000/- Rs.5000/- under the head "Medical expenses" and Rs.20,000/- under the head Loss of foetus is maintained. 11. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is awarded in favour of the claimant to the tune of Rs.9,98,400+Rs.30,000 under the four heads +Rs.5000/- and Rs.20,000/- under the heads "medical expenses and loss of foetus" respectively". 12. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.10,53,400/-. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is upheld. 13. Having said so, the impugned award is modified as indicated herein above. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, if not already deposited, in this Registry within six weeks from today. The Registry, on deposit of the amount, is directed to release the same in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, and excess amount, if any, be refunded to the insurance company, through payees cheque account. 14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 15. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.