Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 337 (HP)

Jarnail Singh v. Deep Kaur

2015-04-10

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. FAO No. 334 of 2007 is directed against the award, dated 29th April, 2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, District Una, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 58 of 2002, titled as Deep Kaur and others vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Raj Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,09,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimants (for short "the impugned award-I"). 2. The subject matter of FAO No. 335 of 2007 is award, dated 29th April, 2006, made by the Tribunal in M.A.C. Petition No. 40 of 2002, titled as Bhai Lal and others vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Raj Kumar, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,12,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimants (for short "the impugned award-II"). 3. Both the impugned awards are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Raj Kumar, while driving Canter, bearing registration No. PB-10 AU-4128, rashly and negligently on 06.04.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., near Village Majehar. Smt Kamal Kaur and Smt. Babli Devi were travelling in the said canter, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The claimants filed two separate claim petitions, came to be granted in terms of the awards, which are impugned in these appeals. 5. I deem it proper to club and determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 6. I have gone through the impugned awards and perused the entire record. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has rightly recorded the findings that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, thus, the appellant-owner-insured has committed the willful breach and held that the owner-insured was in breach and directed the insurer to satisfy the award with a right of recovery. 8. The insurer, the driver and the claimants have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them. 9. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned awards on the grounds taken in the respective memo of appeals. 10. 8. The insurer, the driver and the claimants have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them. 9. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned awards on the grounds taken in the respective memo of appeals. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court in a series of cases including Sh. Rajeev Chauhan vs. Shri Hari Chand Bramta & others alongwith National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Shri Hari Chand Bramta & others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1253, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers and the owner-insured has committed the willful breach. 11. Having said so, the impugned awards are to be upheld whereby right of recovery has been granted to the insurer. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the insurer stated at the Bar that amount stands already deposited before this Registry. 13. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the amount awarded in M.A.C. Petition No. 58 of 2002, which is subject matter of FAO No. 334 of 2007, is excessive, as the Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of accident and applied the multiplier of 11', is on higher side, multiplier of 8' was to be applied. 14. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident. The documents annexed with the claim petition, the evidence, oral as well as documentary, do disclose that the age of the deceased was 55 years at the relevant point of time. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the age of the deceased was 55 years. 15. The claimants have not questioned the adequacy of the compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined is - whether the multiplier of 11 came to be rightly applied? 16. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the age of the deceased was 55 years. 15. The claimants have not questioned the adequacy of the compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined is - whether the multiplier of 11 came to be rightly applied? 16. While going through the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act"), multiplier of 8 was to be applied in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Others vs. Madan Mohan & Another, 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 17. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,100/- after deducting one third towards her personal expenses, held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,800/- per annum under the head "loss of estate". 18. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,800 x 8 = Rs. 1,34,400/- under the head "loss of estate". The claimants are also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- under the head "funeral charges", Rs. 10,000/- under the head "loss of love and affection" and Rs. 5,000/- under the head "taxi charges". 19. Accordingly, the claimants in FAO No. 334 of 2007 are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,59,400/- (i.e. Rs. 1,34,400/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. 20. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award in FAO No. 335 is 2007 is upheld and the impugned award in FAO No. 334 of 2007 is modified, as indicated hereinabove. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 21. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount, if deposited, in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned awards. 22. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.