Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 197 (HP)

Viyasan Devi v. Ashok Kumar

2016-03-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 12th June, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 15 of 2007, titled as Smt. Viyasan Devi and others versus Ashok Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,14,000/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 and against the respondents (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The owner-insured, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellants-claimants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is adequate or inadequate? 5. I have gone through the impugned award as well as the record and am of the considered view that the amount awarded is inadequate for the following reasons: 6. Admittedly, as the Tribunal has held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 13,583/, as per the salary certificate, Ext. PW3/ A. Accordingly, it is held that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 13,600/. 7. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the age of the deceased was 52 years. The claimants have pleaded and proved that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident. The averments contained in the claim petition have remained unrebutted. However, in view of the post mortem report, Ext. PW1/ A, and the statement of PW5, Mahinder Kumar, it can be safely held that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident. Accordingly, it is held that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident. 8. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased, one-fifth was to be deducted in terms of the Apex Court judgments. Thus, the claimants have lost source of income to the tune of Rs. 11,000/per month. 9. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 8'. 8. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased, one-fifth was to be deducted in terms of the Apex Court judgments. Thus, the claimants have lost source of income to the tune of Rs. 11,000/per month. 9. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 8'. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 11' is just and proper. 10. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants have lost source of income/dependency to the tune of Rs. 11,000 x 12 x 11= Rs. 14,52,000/. 11. The claimants are also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/each under the head 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. 12. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,52,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/= Rs. 14,92,000/with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal is disposed of. 14. The enhanced awarded amount be deposited before the Registry of this Court within six weeks. On deposition, the awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 15. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.