Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 534 (HP)

Balkar Singh v. Ram Pal alias Sanju

2015-05-15

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 28.02.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh, (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 9 of 2006, titled as Balkar Singh and others versus Ram Pal alias Sanju and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,06,760/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants (for short "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 2. Smt. Kashmir Kaur became the victim of a vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Ram Pal alias Sanju, who had driven Mohindra Pick-up, bearing registration No. HP-36-4320, rashly and negligently on 21.01.2006, at about 6.40 p.m., near Arniala Bazar, Una, hit the scooter, bearing registration No. HP-20 A-8077, on which Smt. Kashmir Kaur was a pillion rider. She sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. Deceased-Kashmir Kaur left behind her husband, namely Shri Balkar Singh, and two minor sons, namely Khushpaul Singh and Tarunjeet Singh, who invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. The respondents, i.e. the owner-insured, the driver and the insurer, contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 02.06.2006: "1. Whether Kashmir Kaur died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Jeep (No. HP-36-4320) by Ram Pal (respondent 1) on January 21, 2006? OPP 2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident was attributable to rashness and negligence of the scooterist (deceased Kanta Devi). If so, to what effect? OPP 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the scooter (No. HP-20A-8077)? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Whether the jeep in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR 7. Relief." 6. OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Whether the jeep in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR 7. Relief." 6. Parties led evidence and the Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the driver, namely Shri Ram Pal alias Sanju, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 21.01.2006, at about 6.40 p.m., near Arniala Bazar, caused the accident, in which Smt. Kashmir Kaur sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. All the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 7. The respondents, i.e. the owner-insured, the driver and the insurer, have not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal on any count. Neither they have filed any appeal nor cross-objections. Accordingly, the impugned award has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 8. The appellants-claimants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 9. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of the accident, as her date of birth has been recorded as 31.05.1965 in her matriculation certificate, Mark-X. She was a government employee and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs. 13,315/- in terms of salary certificate, Ext. PW-2/A. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 12,455/-. 10. Keeping in view the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, multiplier of 13' is applicable. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error while applying the multiplier of 12'. 11. It appears that the Tribunal has adopted the novel procedure in assessing the salary of the deceased. By guess, it can be safely said that deceased would have been spending one third towards her personal expenses. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error while applying the multiplier of 12'. 11. It appears that the Tribunal has adopted the novel procedure in assessing the salary of the deceased. By guess, it can be safely said that deceased would have been spending one third towards her personal expenses. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% towards her personal expenses. At best, one third was to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased while keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra). 12. In view of the above, it is held that the claimants have lost source of income/dependency to the tune of Rs. 8800/- per month, i.e. Rs. 8800/- x 12 = Rs. 1,05,600/- per annum. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,05,600/- x 13 = Rs. 13,72,800/-. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses', Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium' and Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,72,800/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 14,02,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its finalization. 14. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within six weeks from today. On deposition, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.