Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 629 (HP)

Raghu Devi v. Dewan Chand (deceased)

2015-05-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award dated 29.8.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III), Shimla, H.P. in MACT No. 67-S/2 of 2005/2004 titled Smt. Raghu Devi versus Dewan Chand and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- with 7.5% interest was awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimant Raghu Devi, mother has lost her son, namely Sanjeev, who was 21 years of age at the time of accident, which was caused by Gobind Singh, who had driven the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-06-2689 rashly and negligently on 14.9.2003 at Murthal (Haryana). 3. Mother of the deceased filed claim petition for the grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. Owner, driver and insurer have filed objections and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. (i) Whether Sanjeev alias Malku died as a result of accident of vehicle No.HP-06-2689 on 14.9.2003 at Murthal-Sonepat which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2? OPP. (ii) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3. (iii) Whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. (v) To what amount and from who the petitioner is entitled? OPP. (vi) Relief. 5. The claimant examined Jitender as PW1 and herself stepped into witness-box as PW2. 6. On the other hand, driver and owner stepped into witness-box and have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant have remained un-rebutted. 7. The Tribunal held that the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the said day and Issue No. 1 came to be decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Thus the findings returned on this issue have attained finality and are accordingly upheld. 8. The insurer has failed to lead any evidence on issues No. 2 to 4 as such it has failed to discharge the onus. The Tribunal has rightly decided these issues in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. Thus the findings returned on this issue have attained finality and are accordingly upheld. 8. The insurer has failed to lead any evidence on issues No. 2 to 4 as such it has failed to discharge the onus. The Tribunal has rightly decided these issues in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. The Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,10,000/-, which, on the face of it, is meager for the following reasons. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident and the multiplier applicable is “15” in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 which has also been followed and affirmed in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and anr. reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. But the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of “12”. 10. It is pleaded that he was a mason by vocation and was earning Rs.15000/- per month. By a guess work, it can be safely said that, he would have been earning, at least, Rs.6000/- per month, as labourer. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that deceased was earning Rs.2500/- per month only. 11. A mother has lost at least Rs.3000/- per month as source of dependency, thus is entitled to Rs.3000x12x14= 5,04,000/-, as compensation. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.5,04,000/- + Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal for love and affection, total Rs.5,34,000/-., with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 12. Accordingly, amount of compensation is enhanced. The impugned award is modified and appeal is allowed. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation minus the amount already deposited, within eight weeks from today in the Registry. 13. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. 15. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.