Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1599 (HP)

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Prem Chand

2016-08-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 24th February, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.8 of 2008, titled Prem Chand vs. Paramjit Singh and another, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.9,94,000/-, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the original respondents i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and the driver (appellants herein) were saddled with the liability jointly and severally, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant has not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far as it relates to him. 3. The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the claimant has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 5. I have examined the pleadings contained in the Claim Petition, the reply filed by the original respondents and also have gone through the record and am of the considered view that virtually the fact of rash and negligent driving was admitted. Therefore, there was no need to lead evidence to prove the said factum. However, the Tribunal has framed issue to that effect and parties have led evidence. 6. The Tribunal in paragraphs 9 to 15 of the impugned award has rightly made the discussion and concluded that, at the relevant point of time, the driver was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries and suffered 65% permanent disability. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 7. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant revolves around issue No.2. 8. The claimant suffered 65% permanent disability. As has come on record, the claimant, after the accident, remained admitted in Government Medical College, Chandigarh from 22nd July, 2005 to 3rd August, 2005. In order to prove the extent and the nature of disability, the claimant examined PW-7 Dr. 8. The claimant suffered 65% permanent disability. As has come on record, the claimant, after the accident, remained admitted in Government Medical College, Chandigarh from 22nd July, 2005 to 3rd August, 2005. In order to prove the extent and the nature of disability, the claimant examined PW-7 Dr. Sandip Kalia, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which issued the disability certificate Ext.PW-6/A in favour of the claimant. A perusal of the statement of PW-7 Dr. Sandip Kalia and disability certificate Ext.PW-6/A clearly shows that the claimant suffered 65% disability, which was permanent in nature. 9. The claimant was driver by profession and, as claimed, was earning Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as diet money. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month and keeping in view the extent of permanent disability i.e. 65%, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of earning to the tune of Rs.4,550/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive in any way. 10. The claimant has pleaded in paragraph 2 of the Claim Petition that he was 40 years of age at the time of accident. It is not clear from the perusal of the impugned award as to on what basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was 35 years of age at the relevant point of time. The claimant also appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed his age as 40 years. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the claimant-injured, multiplier of 14 was applicable in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, read with 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has fell into an error in applying the multiplier of 16. 11. Accordingly, it is held that multiplier of 14 is just, appropriate and applicable in the present case. 12. In view of the above discussion, the claimant-injured is held entitled to Rs.4550 x 12 x 14 = Rs.7,64,400/- under the head ‘loss of earning’. The Tribunal has fell into an error in applying the multiplier of 16. 11. Accordingly, it is held that multiplier of 14 is just, appropriate and applicable in the present case. 12. In view of the above discussion, the claimant-injured is held entitled to Rs.4550 x 12 x 14 = Rs.7,64,400/- under the head ‘loss of earning’. In addition, the amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.400/-, under the heads ‘loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering’, ‘attendant charges’ and ‘medical expenses’, respectively, is maintained. 13. Having glance of the above, the claimant is awarded Rs.7,64,400/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.400/- = Rs.8,84,800/-, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the impugned award. The excess amount, if any, be refunded in favour of appellant No.1 through payee’s account cheque. 15. Viewed thus, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above, and the appeal is allowed.