Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 631 (HP)

Sudesh Bala v. Union of India

2015-05-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of a vehicular traffic accident thus; I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Scooter bearing registration No.HP-19A-1021, was hit by vehicle No. 02K-7071W-275-Class-I at Bus stand, Jhangoli at about 2.45 p.m, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Aayush Banyal was driving the scooter and other was pillion rider, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants are the parents of the deceased in both the claim petitions and sought compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. The Union of India-respondents herein in the claim petition resisted the claim petitions on the ground that Aayush Banyal has driven the scooter rashly and negligently. 5. After examining the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues in both the claim petitions which are similar. Thus, I deem it proper to reproduce the issues framed in one of the claim petitions (FAO No. 143 of 2008) herein: (i) Whether Aayush Banyal died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a truck (No.02k-7071W-275) by Bijender Pal (respondent No.3) on 29.6.2005. …OPP (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if So, to what amount and from whom. …..OPP (iii) Whether the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the deceased Ayush Banyal, as alleged. …..OPR (iv) Relief. 6. Parties have examined witnesses. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,400/- in FAO No. 143 of 2008 and Rs.2,26,000/- in FAO No. 144 of 2008, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and directed the Union of India to satisfy the 50% of the compensation awarded in both the cases. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have questioned both the awards on following two grounds. (i) That the accident is not outcome of contributory negligence but was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the diver of Union of India. (ii) The amount awarded is inadequate. 9. I deem it proper to record herein that respondents-Union of India have not taken the plea of contributory negligence in the reply filed before the Tribunal but have pleaded that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter. 10. (ii) The amount awarded is inadequate. 9. I deem it proper to record herein that respondents-Union of India have not taken the plea of contributory negligence in the reply filed before the Tribunal but have pleaded that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter. 10. FIR No.105 of 2005 was also lodged at Police Station Amb, investigation was conducted and final report came to be filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of competent jurisdiction transferred the case to the Court Martial and Court Martial conducted the proceedings. 11. I have gone through the statement of RW2, namely, Indraj Kumar who has stated that he and driver of the offending vehicle has been convicted by the Court Martial. 12. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, was asked to place on record the Court Martial proceedings and has placed on record the photocopies of charge sheet, plea of guilt made by the accused-driver and order of conviction and sentence made by the Court Martial. Thus, it is established, rather admitted that the driver, namely, Bijender Pal has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and has been convicted. A driver, who is convicted, cannot take the ground of contributory negligence and claimants are not supposed to prove the plea of rashness or negligence. Thus, it can be safely said that the driver Bijender Pal has caused the accident by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 13. The apex Court in case titled NKV Bros. (P) Ltd vs. M. karumai Ammal and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 held that in criminal case acquittal of the driver cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. Applying the test in this case, the driver has been convicted, no more proof was required. 14. The driver and the Union of India have not questioned the impugned awards on any ground, thus, have attained finality so far the same relate to them. 15. Having said so, I hold that the accident was only outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck of the Union of India. Accordingly, the finding returned by the Tribunal is set aside and Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the Union of India. 16. The next question is-whether the amount awarded is adequate? Accordingly, the finding returned by the Tribunal is set aside and Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the Union of India. 16. The next question is-whether the amount awarded is adequate? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 17. Admittedly, both the deceased were students of 11th class and their parents have lost their budding sons, who were their future source of income and hope for old age. 18. By guess work, it can be held that after few years, they would have qualified graduation and would have got employment or, at least, after two or three years they would have become labourers and would have been earning not less than Rs.5000/- per month each. 19. Applying 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, it can be safely said that the parents have lost source of dependency to the tune of 50%, i.e. Rs.2,500/- per month, in each case. 20. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the parents, the multiplier of “16” is just and appropriate multiplier in both these cases, while keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgment, supra. Thus, multiplier of “16” is applied in both these cases. The claimants are held entitled to Rs.2500x12x16= Rs.4,80,000/-, in each case. 21. In view of the above, the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization is awarded in each of the cases. 22. Accordingly, the impugned awards are modified, as indicated hereinabove, and the appeals merit to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. 23. The Union of India is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks from today, provided it has already deposited the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. If not deposited, the entire amount be deposited within the above time frame. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards, through payee’s cheque account. 24. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.