Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 692 (HP)

Master Sachin v. Urmila Chauhan

2015-06-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 29.02.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT No. 20-S/2 of 2006/04, titled as Master Sachin and others versus Smt. Urmila Chauhan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% 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 became the victims of a vehicular accident, when their father, aged 38 years, died in a cruel accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Veer Singh, while driving taxi, i.e. Maxi Cab, bearing registration No. HP-01 A-3004, rashly and negligently on 03.03.2003, near Kuthar, Tehsil Nerwa, constraining them to file claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the grounds taken therein. 3. The driver, owner-insured and the insurer contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 24.04.2006: "1. Whether on 3.3.2003 near Kuthar the respondent No. 2 was driving the Maxi Cab No. HP-01 A-3004 rashly and negligently and caused the death of Shri Jai Lal? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether insured has committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR 4. Relief." 5. The claimants, in support of their claim, examined Sapinder Singh as PW-1, Jiwan Lal as PW-2, Varinder Singh as PW-3, and Roshan Lal as PW-4. The owner-insured appeared in the witness box as RW-1. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum vide impugned award. 7. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 8. 7. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 8. The claimants-appellants, by the medium of the appeal in hand, have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 9. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is - whether the amount awarded is just and appropriate? The answer is in negative for the following reasons: 10. Admittedly, the deceased was 38 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14', but has fallen in an error in making the deductions and holding that he was contributing Rs. 4,000/- per month to the family, is not legally correct. Admittedly, he was a government employee, drawing salary to the tune of Rs.9,610/- per month before the accident, in terms of the salary certificate, Exhibit PW-2/B. 11. Applying 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, one fourth was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. However, keeping in view the fact that the mother of the claimants is also an earning hand and is a party before this Court as the owner-insured of the offending vehicle, at least one third was to be deducted, which has not been done. 12. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.6,400/- per month. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.6,400 x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,75,200/-. The compensation awarded under other heads to the tune of Rs.28,000/- is just and appropriate, needs no interference. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, total compensation to the tune of Rs.10,75,200 + Rs.28,000/- = Rs.11,03,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum is awarded in favour of the claimants. 14. Having said so, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 15. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, total compensation to the tune of Rs.10,75,200 + Rs.28,000/- = Rs.11,03,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum is awarded in favour of the claimants. 14. Having said so, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 15. 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. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.