Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1238 (HP)

Poonam Sharma v. Vijay Singh

2016-07-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24th December, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 14 of 2008, titled as Poonam Sharma & others versus Shri Vijay Singh & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,57,000/- 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 and the insurer-respondent No. 2 herein, was saddled with liability, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner-cum-driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the compensation amount is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 5. The said question revolves around Issue No. 2. It is apt to reproduce Issue No. 2 herein:- “If issue No. 1 supra is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? …OPP” 6. The claimants have specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. They have also placed on record photostat copy of the salary certificate of the deceased (Mark-B), which appeared to be issued by one Devender Singh, owner of Excise License Rangas Unit, District Hamirpur, H.P. As per the aforesaid salary certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,500/-. 7. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 31 years at the time of accident. 8. The Tribunal has made discussion in para-13 of the impugned award, which is not legally and factually correct for the following reasons. 9. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-, appears to be on the lesser side. Even, a labourer would not have been earning less than Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. Therefore, it can safely be held that that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 6,000/-. 10. The claimants are four in number. 3,000/-, appears to be on the lesser side. Even, a labourer would not have been earning less than Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. Therefore, it can safely be held that that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 6,000/-. 10. The claimants are four in number. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. After deducted one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it can be held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 4,500/-. 11. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘16’. The multiplier of ‘15’ was applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 12. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs. 4500/- x 12 x 15= 8,10,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 13. Keeping in view the recent judgments of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, is also awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ in favour of the claimants. 14. The Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is accordingly maintained. 15. Having said so, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,10,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- total amounting to Rs. 8,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 16. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 17. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of six weeks from today before the Registry. 8,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 16. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 17. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of six weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 18. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 19. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.