Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1601 (HP)

Daljit Singh v. Krishna Devi

2016-08-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 29th November, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.12 of 2006, titled Krishna Devi and another vs. Daljit Singh and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the original respondents i.e. appellants herein were saddled with the liability jointly and severally, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The grounds projected by the appellants are not tenable for the following reasons. The owner and the driver have settled the claim for Rs.50,000/- relating to claimant Veena Rani, who had, therefore, abandoned her claim before the Tribunal. Compromise to this effect has been proved on record Ext.PW-2/A. Thus, it can be said that it was admitted by the owner and the driver that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to argue before this Court that the claimant has not proved that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor. The Tribunal has correctly made the discussion in the impugned award and came to the conclusion that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In the absence of any evidence led by the claimant, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a labourer and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the higher side. Rather, in view of the fact that claimant Smt. Krishna Devi lost her son in the accident and is deprived of his love and affection. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the higher side. Rather, in view of the fact that claimant Smt. Krishna Devi lost her son in the accident and is deprived of his love and affection. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be meager. The Tribunal also applied multiplier of 9, which too, is on the lower side. Since the claimant has not questioned the impugned award, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount alongwith up-to-date interest accrued thereon, in favour of the claimant through her bank account, forthwith, after proper identification.