Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 864 (HP)

Salochana Devi v. Shyam Lal

2015-07-10

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. All these appeals are outcome of one vehicular accident, thus, I deem it proper to determine all the three appeals by this common judgment. 2. Subject matter of these appeals is the separate judgments and awards, dated 20.06.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims TribunalII, Solan, District Solan, Camp at Nalagarh (for short "the Tribunal") in the respective claim petitions, whereby compensation came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the owner-insured came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned awards"). 3. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned any of the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them. 4. The claimants in all the three claim petitions have questioned the impugned awards on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. In order to determine the issue, it is necessary to give flashback of the facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeals in hand. 6. It is averred in the claim petitions that the driver, namely Shri Joginder Singh, while driving the offending vehicle, i.e. bus, bearing registration No. HP124175, rashly and negligently, on 12.05.2006, at about 10.25 A.M., near bridge Kashmirpur on Nalagarh Bagheri road, caused the accident in which three young bachelor boys, namely Sunil Kumar, Chander Mohan and Gurnam Singh, aged eighteen years, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 7. The claimants filed separate claim petitions in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") before the Tribunal and sought compensation on the grounds taken in the respective claim petitions. 8. The respondents, i.e. the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle, resisted all the three claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 9. Similar set of issues came to be framed in all the three claim petitions. Thus, I deem it proper to reproduce the issues framed by the Tribunal in one claim petition. 10. Following issues came to be framed in M.A.C. Petition No. 4NL/2 of 2007 on 05.12.2007: "1. Whether the deceased Sunil Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving bus bearing No. HP124175 on 12.05.2006 near Kashmirpur bridge? OPP 2. 10. Following issues came to be framed in M.A.C. Petition No. 4NL/2 of 2007 on 05.12.2007: "1. Whether the deceased Sunil Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving bus bearing No. HP124175 on 12.05.2006 near Kashmirpur bridge? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, as to what amount of the compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Relief." 11. Parties led evidence in each of the claim petitions. 12. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently on 12.05.2006, at about 10.25 A.M., near bridge Kashmirpur on Nalagarh Bagheri road and caused the accident in which three young boys, namely Sunil Kumar, Chander Mohan and Gurnam Singh lost their lives and decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents in each of the claim petitions. The findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are not in dispute. Thus, the same are upheld. 13. The Tribunal has rightly held that the income of each of the deceased, who were young bachelor boys of 18 years, was Rs. 3,000/- per month, but has fallen in an error while deducting two third, whereas in view of the law 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, 50% was to be deducted. Viewed thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 1,500/per month. 14. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error while applying the multiplier in each of the claim petition. The deceased in each of the claim petitions were eighteen years' of age. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case and Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of 14' is applicable. 15. Viewed thus, the claimants in each of the claim petitions are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,500/x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,52,000/-. 16. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case and Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of 14' is applicable. 15. Viewed thus, the claimants in each of the claim petitions are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,500/x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,52,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding compensation under the heads 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. The claimants are held entitled to Rs. 10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. 17. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation amounting to Rs. 2,52,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/= Rs. 2,72,000/- in each of the claim petitions. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, all the three appeals merit to be allowed and the impugned awards are to be modified. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned awards are modified, as indicated hereinabove. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for the owner-insured stated at the Bar that the owner-insured has already satisfied the award. The owner-insured is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount in each of the claim petitions before the Registry within six weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the respective claimants as per the terms and conditions contained in the respective impugned awards after proper identification. 20. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.