Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 680 (HP)

Secretary (Home) v. Shanti Devi

2015-06-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 13.03.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 66 of 2006, titled as Smt. Shanti Devi and others versus Secretary Home and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,79,000/- 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 have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellants-respondents in the claim petition have questioned the impugned award, by the medium of this appeal, on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive. 4. I have gone through the claim petition, record and the evidence and am of the considered view that the claimants have proved by leading evidence that the driver, namely, Shri Prem Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-25-0682, owned by H.P. Police Department, rashly and negligently on 13.09.2002, at about 3.20 P.M., on the way from Tapri to Purani Tapri and caused the accident, in which deceased-Mangat Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 5. Respondents in the claim petition have not led any evidence in rebuttal of the same and the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents-appellants herein. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 6. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 3. 7. Respondents have failed to prove how the claim petition is not maintainable. The Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants are the victims of the vehicular accident, thus, the claim petition is maintainable. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. 8. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, argued that the amount awarded is excessive for the reason that the claimants have been paid all service benefits of the deceased, is to be deducted. 9. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. 8. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, argued that the amount awarded is excessive for the reason that the claimants have been paid all service benefits of the deceased, is to be deducted. 9. The argument is misconceived for the reason that claimant No. 1 has lost her husband, thus, has been deprived of her matrimonial home and claimants No. 2 to 5 have lost their father, have been deprived of love and affection of their father and source of dependency. 10. Admittedly, the deceased was working in the Police Department. The claimants have pleaded that the last salary drawn by the deceased was Rs. 7,500/- - Rs. 8,000/-. Respondents have not denied the said factum. 11. The Tribunal, after taking the pleadings in view, deducted one third towards his personal expenses and came to the conclusion that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of 5,000/- per month. However, one fourth was to be deducted in view of 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, but, as the claimants have not questioned the same, it is accordingly maintained. 12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16', which is on the higher side. In view of 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 judgments (supra), multiplier of 15' was to be applied. Accordingly, I deem it proper to apply the multiplier of 15'. 13. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 9,00,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection', Rs. 5,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses', Rs. 2,000/- under the head 'taxi charges' and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of petition. 14. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 9,00,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection', Rs. 5,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses', Rs. 2,000/- under the head 'taxi charges' and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of petition. 14. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 9,00,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- = Rs. 9,19,000/-. 15. Having glance of the above discussions, the amount of compensation is reduced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 16. 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. 17. The appeal is disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications. 18. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.