Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 124 (HP)

Sitara Begum v. Mohd Nawab

2016-02-26

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 16th December, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Petition No. 114-MAC/2 of 2005, titled Smt. Sitara Begum & another versus Mohd. Nawab & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed, for short, ‘the impugned award’. 2. The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. tractor and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. Only, one of the claimants, Smt. Sitara Begum has questioned the impugned award, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Heard. The impugned award merits to be set aside for the following reasons. 5. Claimants Sitara Begum and Uzma are the mother and widow of Mohammad Javed, deceased, respectively. The claimants have specifically averred in the claim petition that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of Mohammad Nawab, i.e. respondent No. 1, who had driven the offending tractor, rashly and negligently, on 11.10.2005 and caused the accident, at about 5.50 a.m., at Brahampur Shri Ram Chander Mission, Yoga Ashram, Roorki, in which, Javed Mohammad sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have specifically averred in their objections to the claim petition that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who was driving the motor cycle bearing No. UP-11-N-5483, rashly and negligently, could not control the same and struck against the tractor. Thus, they have admitted that the accident was outcome of the use of the motor vehicle, which runs contrary to the findings returned by the Tribunal in paras 9 to 11 of the impugned award. 7. The claimants have specifically averred in the claim petition that driver Mohammad Nawab had driven the tractor, rashly and negligently and caused the accident. They have also examined witnesses to this effect. The respondents have not led any evidence to the contrary. 8. It is prima-facie proved that the tractor was being driven, rashly and negligently by driver Mohammad Nawab. Even otherwise, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor has to be applied and the driver had to take precaution, which he has failed to do so. 9. The respondents have not led any evidence to the contrary. 8. It is prima-facie proved that the tractor was being driven, rashly and negligently by driver Mohammad Nawab. Even otherwise, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor has to be applied and the driver had to take precaution, which he has failed to do so. 9. Having said so, the claimants have proved issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are set aside and it is held that Mohmmad Nawab had driven the tractor, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which Mohammand Javed had lost his life. 10. The next question is- as to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to? 11. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident. The claimants have specifically averred in the claim petition that his income was Rs. 8,000/- per month, at the time of accident. While exercising the guess work, it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs. 4,000/- at the relevant time. After deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it can be held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per month. 12. The multiplier of ‘16’ is applicable in this case, as per 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, 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. 13. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the cases, supra, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs. 2500/- x 12 = Rs. 30,000 x 16 = Rs. 4,80,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 14. 13. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the cases, supra, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs. 2500/- x 12 = Rs. 30,000 x 16 = Rs. 4,80,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 14. 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. 15. Having said so, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- total amounting to Rs. 5,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 16. Now the question is – who is to be saddled with liability? 17. The factum of insurance is admitted. Accordingly, the insurer-insurance, i.e. respondent No. 6 is saddled with the liability. 18. The claimants Sitara Begum and Uzma are entitled to the compensation in equal shares. 19. The insurer-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the award amount be released in favour of the claimants, in equal shares, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or by depositing it in their accounts. In case, claimant Uzma fails to appear, her share be deposited in the fixed deposit for a period of five years. 20. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside, the compensation to tune of Rs. 5,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, is awarded in favour of the claimants and the appeal is disposed of. 21. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.