Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 859 (HP)

Chanda Devi v. Surender Singh

2015-07-10

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 1st September, 2007, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur, District at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 46-N/2 of 2005, titled Smt. Chanda Devi & others versus Shri Surender Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,39,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants herein and against the insurer-respondent No. 3, herein (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only dispute in this appeal is –whether the award amount is inadequate. The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 5. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 35 years. The claimants in para-3 of the claim petition have pleaded the age of the deceased as 30 years at the time of accident, which has also been proved by them by leading evidence. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error by taking the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of accident. On the face of the record, the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident. Thus, it is held that the age of the deceased was 30 years at the relevant time. 6. The multiplier of ‘16’ is applicable in this case in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transpor Transport Corporation and another another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 7. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased. Admittedly, his monthly income was Rs.2800/-, which stands proved by the salary certificate Ext. 7. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased. Admittedly, his monthly income was Rs.2800/-, which stands proved by the salary certificate Ext. PW-4/A. 1/5th of the monthly income of the deceased was to be deduced from his personal expenses, in view of para 30 of the Sarla Verma’s case, supra. Thus, it can safely be held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2300/- per month. 7. In the given circumstances, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2300/- x 12 = Rs.27,600 x 16= Rs. 4,41,600/-. 8. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in not awarding compensation to the claimants under the heads ‘funeral expenses, ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of consortium’. 9. The claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- each, under the heads ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of estate, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of consortium’, total amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. 10. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 4,41,600/- + 10,000/- +10,000/- + 10,000/- + 10,000/-, total amounting to Rs. 4,81,600/-. 11. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, within eight weeks from today before the Registry. The Registry is directed to release the amount, if any already deposited and the enhanced amount, on its deposition, in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 12. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 13. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.