Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 814 (HP)

Kanta Devi v. Nilima Devi

2015-07-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) There is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Hence, they are set exparte. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 13.11.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in R.B.T. No. 9S/ 2 of 2005/2000, titled as Smt. Kanta Devi and others versus Sh. Roshan Lal Aggarwal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,38,000/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 3. The appellants-claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 insurer, stated at the Bar that this Court has considered the matter in FAO No. 20 of 2008, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Kanta Devi & others, which stands disposed of vide judgment and order, dated 22.05.2015. His statement is taken on record. 5. I have gone through the judgment (supra), perusal of which does disclose that, though, this Court has reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5%, but, the question of adequacy of compensation was not determined. 6. Thus, the question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate? 7. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in para 20 of the impugned award and I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14' while keeping in view the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") read with 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, and has rightly held that the claimants have lost source of income/ dependency to the tune of Rs.27,000/per annum, at the relevant point of time, needs no interference. 8. Having said so, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. 8. Having said so, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 9. 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 through payee's account cheque. 10. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.