Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1683 (HP)

Indra Devi v. Baba Ram

2016-08-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 12th November, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.13,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The insurer, the owner/insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate or otherwise? 4. Claimants, being dependants upon deceased Ramesh Chand, who died in a vehicular accident occurred on 29th December, 2008 at about 7.45 p.m., invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), for compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and following issues were framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident and consequent death of deceased Ramesh Chand caused on 29.12.2008 at about 7.45 P.M. on NH-21 near Tamanna Hotel at Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. was due to rash and negligent driving of offending Truck bearing registration No.HP-22-7555 being driven by Sh.Jagdish Chand, respondent No.2 as alleged, if so its effect? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Truck bearing registration No.HP-22-7555 at the relevant time as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 was being driven by respondent No.2 in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, if so its effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of respondent No.2 and the deceased (Driver of Motorcycle No.HP-24-A-4484? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-3 7. Relief.” 6. OPR-3 5. Whether the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of respondent No.2 and the deceased (Driver of Motorcycle No.HP-24-A-4484? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-3 7. Relief.” 6. Parties led evidence and the Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition by awarding Rs.13,75,000/- as compensation. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate inasmuch as the gross income of the deceased was Rs.11,000/- and the Tribunal has fallen into an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. In addition, it was also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under the heads ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’, respectively, which amount needs to be enhanced. 9. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was serving in A.C.C. Factory, Barmana. The claimants have proved on record the salary certificate in respect of the deceased as Ext.PW-2/A, which does disclose that his gross salary for the month of October, 2008 was Rs.11068/-. Respondents disputed the said amount of salary and also proved on record salary certificates Ext.R-1 and Ext.R-2, for the months of November, 2008 and December, 2008, wherein the salary of the deceased for these months has been shown as Rs.7929/- and Rs.8228.71, respectively. 10. The Tribunal after making detailed discussion and guess work has rightly held that the net income of the deceased was not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. The age of the deceased has been taken as 38 years at the time of death and the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15, which is just and appropriate. The Tribunal has also awarded adequate compensation under the other heads. 11. Having said so, there is no merit in the instant appeal, impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.