Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2066 (HP)

Keblu Devi v. Lagan Dass

2016-09-23

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 12th September, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 45-S/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Keblu Devi and others versus Sh. Lagan Dass and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 5,04,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization and costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The insurer, owner-insured and the driver 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 adequacy of compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons: 5. The insurer and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award, thus, the factum of insurance and liability is not in dispute. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of the accident. The appellants-claimants have specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month as driver and was also being paid Rs.100/- per day as pocket/diet money. The Tribunal, after making assessment vide paras 18 to 21, came to be conclusion that the income of the deceased was not more than Rs.4,000/- per month, deducted one fourth towards personal expenses of the deceased and held that the claimants have suffered loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.36,000/- per annum, appears to be reasonable. 7. But, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of 14' as the multiplier of 16' was to be applied in view of the law 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 SCC 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 MV Act. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the MV Act. 8. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.36,000/- x 16 = Rs.5,76,000/- under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 9. The Tribunal has also erred in not awarding compensation under the other heads. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. 10. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,76,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.6,16,000/-. 11. The Tribunal has also committed a legal mistake while awarding interest @ 8% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 12. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in, (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in, 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in, (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in, (2015) 4 SCC 433 ; and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in, (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 13. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 8% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 14. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 15. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. 14. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 15. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition of the amount, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.