Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 60 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Ragi Ram

2015-01-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 18th May, 2013, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in A.C.T. No. 48-S/2 of 2011, titled as Sh. Rangi Ram and others versus Mrs. Deepa Kumari and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,60,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimants and the owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on various counts including the adequacy of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that he restricts the challenge and appeal so far it relates only to the quantum of compensation. 5. In order to determine the said issue, it is necessary to give a flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. Brief facts: 6. The claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation on the ground that driver-cum-owner, namely Shri Kehar Singh, had driven the vehicle, i.e. Maruti Car, bearing registration No. HP-06A-2090, rashly and negligently on 10th April, 2011, at about 4.15 a.m., at Gwahi on its way from Nankhari to Solan; resultantly the vehicle rolled down the road, the owner-cum-driver and deceased, namely Km. Sandeepna, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 7. The respondents, i.e. the owners-insured and the insurer resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 19th December, 2011: "1. Whether Kumari Sandeepna had died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-06A-2090 by its driver? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to? OPP 3. Whether driver of vehicle No. HP-06A-2090 had not been in possession of valid and effective driving licence. If so with what effect? OPR-3 4. Whether owner of vehicle No. HP-06A-2090 had contravened terms and conditions of insurance policy and Act? OPR-3 5. Whether Kumari Sandeepna had been travelling as gratuitous passenger in vehicle No. HP-06A-2090. If so, with what effect? OPR-3 6. Relief." 9. If so with what effect? OPR-3 4. Whether owner of vehicle No. HP-06A-2090 had contravened terms and conditions of insurance policy and Act? OPR-3 5. Whether Kumari Sandeepna had been travelling as gratuitous passenger in vehicle No. HP-06A-2090. If so, with what effect? OPR-3 6. Relief." 9. One of the claimants, namely Shri Rangi Ram, has himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1, examined Dr. Pawan Sharma as PW-2 and placed on record photocopies of family register, FIR, postmortem and the receipt issued by Goods carrier & Tour Travel as Exhibits PW-1/A, PW-1/B, PW-1/C and PW-1/D, respectively. Respondent No. 1 has appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and has placed on record copy of registration certificate and insurance policy as Exhibits RW-1/A and R-1, respectively. The insurer has not led any evidence in support of its case. Issue No. 1: 10. The Tribunal, after examining the documents and the evidence held that the driver, namely Shri Kehar Singh, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 10th April, 2011, at about 4.15 a.m., at Gwahi, and caused the accident. There is no rebuttal to the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 5. Issues No. 3 to 5: 12. The onus to prove these issues was on the appellant-insurer, has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. However, I have perused the record and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly decided all the three issues in favour of the claimants and against the insurer. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 3 to 5 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 13. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the deceased, namely Kumari Sandeepna, was 25 years of age at the time of accident and was a student of BA- II year, would have been earning Rs.4,500/- per month and applied multiplier of 18'. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was a student and by guess work, at the best, should have been earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly deducted one third towards her personal expenses. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was a student and by guess work, at the best, should have been earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly deducted one third towards her personal expenses. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18'. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,32,000/- (i.e. Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 18) under the head 'loss of source of dependency'. 15. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs.2,500/- under the head 'transportation charges'. 16. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 9% per annum, was to be awarded @ 7.5% per annum. 17. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal merits to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified by providing that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,44,500/- (i.e. Rs.4,32,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,500/-) with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 18. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. Excess amount be released to the appellant-insurer through payee's account cheque. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.