Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 357 (HP)

Hans Raj v. Rakesh Kumar

2015-04-17

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) FAO No.44 of 2008: By the medium of this appeal, the Claimant has challenged the award, dated 29th October, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.42 of 2004, titled Hans Raj and others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,64,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was awarded in favour of the claimants (appellants herein) and the insurer was saddled with the liability. FAO No.45 of 2008: 2. This appeal, preferred by the claimants, is the outcome of the award dated 29th October, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.41 of 2004, titled Ranjit Singh and others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,18,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was awarded in favour of the claimants (appellants herein), by directing the insurer (respondent No.2 herein) to indemnify the same. 3. Since the Claim Petitions are the outcome of one accident, therefore, both these appeals are taken up together for disposal. 4. At the very threshold, it is apt to place on record that, feeling aggrieved, only the insurer had challenged the impugned awards by the medium of FAO No.64 of 2008 and FAO No.65 of 2008, passed in Claim Petition No.41 of 2004, titled Ranjit Singh and others vs. Rakesh Kumar and Claim Petition No.42 of 2004, titled Hans Raj and others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another, respectively, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10th April, 2015 and the impugned awards were upheld. 5. The owner/insured has not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, the same have attained finality in so far as the impugned awards relate to him. 6. The claimants, feeling aggrieved, have questioned the impugned awards on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and needs to be enhanced. 7. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in these appeals is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants are that the Tribunal has fallen in error while determining the income of the deceased and the multiplier has also been wrongly applied by the Tribunal. 9. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in these appeals is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants are that the Tribunal has fallen in error while determining the income of the deceased and the multiplier has also been wrongly applied by the Tribunal. 9. I have gone through the impugned awards. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation in both the claim petitions, has made detailed discussion, and rightly so, in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the impugned awards. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the dependency, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier in both the cases. 10. Having said so, the appellants/claimants have failed to carve out a case for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. 11. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants through payees’ account cheque, strictly in terms of the impugned award. A copy of this judgment be also placed on the record of the connected appeal.