Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 679 (HP)

Kehar Singh v. Ashwani Kumar

2015-06-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award dated 8.3.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II), Solan, Camp at Nalagarh in MAC Petition No. 7-NL/2 of 2006, titled Sh. Kehar Singh and another versus Sh. Ashwani Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- with 9% interest was awarded in favour of the claimants 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. The claimants have lost their son, namely Harpreet Singh, who was 19 years of age at the time of accident, which was caused by Ashwani Kumar, who had driven the vehicle bearing Registration No. CH-28-T-1680 rashly and negligently on 19.4.2006 at about 8 P.M. near Govt. College Nalagarh, on the National Highway-21A. 3. The parents of the deceased filed claim petition for the grant of compensation, as per the breakups 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 the deceased Harpreet Singh died in an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No.1 proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, to what amount ? OPP (iii) Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased as alleged? OPR 1 and 2. (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2. (v) Whether the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purposes at the time of the accident, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (vi) Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident? OPR-3. (vii) Relief. 5. The claimants examined as many as five witnesses, namely, Sh. Vishesh Kumar, (PW1), Smt. Surinder Kaur claimant No.2, (PW2), Sh. Kulvinder (PW3), Sh. Bharat Bushan (PW4) and Sh. Rakesh Kumar (PW5). 6. On the other hand, respondents have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. 7. OPR-3. (vii) Relief. 5. The claimants examined as many as five witnesses, namely, Sh. Vishesh Kumar, (PW1), Smt. Surinder Kaur claimant No.2, (PW2), Sh. Kulvinder (PW3), Sh. Bharat Bushan (PW4) and Sh. Rakesh Kumar (PW5). 6. On the other hand, respondents have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. 7. The Tribunal held that the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the said day and Issues No. 1 and 3 came to be decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Thus the findings returned on these issues have attained finality and are accordingly upheld. 8. The insurer has failed to lead any evidence on issues No. 2 to 6 as such it has failed to discharge the onus. The Tribunal has rightly decided these issues in favour of the claimants and against the insurer. The Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,40,000/-, which, on the face of it, is meager for the following reasons. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was 19 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. The notional income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.15000/- per annum by the Tribunal. The deceased was a young boy of 19 years, was pursing three years diploma Course in Electrical Engineering, had almost put in two years therein in pursuit of his studies and had a bright career in future. By a guess work, it can be safely said that, he would have been earning, at least, Rs.6000/- per month. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per annum only. 11. The parents of the deceased have lost, at least, Rs.3000/- per month as source of dependency, thus are entitled to Rs.3000x12x14= 5,04,000/-, as compensation. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.5,04,000/- + Rs.30,000/- as funeral charges and love and affection, total to the tune of Rs.5,34,000/-., with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 12. 11. The parents of the deceased have lost, at least, Rs.3000/- per month as source of dependency, thus are entitled to Rs.3000x12x14= 5,04,000/-, as compensation. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.5,04,000/- + Rs.30,000/- as funeral charges and love and affection, total to the tune of 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 claimants 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.