Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2236 (HP)

Smt. Anjana Devi v. Badri Prasad

2016-10-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.12.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MAC No.26 of 2010, titled Anjana Devi and others versus Badri Prashad and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award 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? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 5. Admittedly, the deceased Hukam Chand 27 years of age was driver by profession. The claimants are four in numbers. In view of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, the multiplier applicable was “16” and the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of “17”. Thus, it is held that the multiplier of “16” is just and appropriate multiplier applicable. 6. The claimants have pleaded that the income of the deceased was not less than 8000/- per month. They have led evidence and one of the witnesses has stated that he was paying Rs.6000/- per month to the deceased and Rs.100/- per day as daily expenses. Meaning thereby the minimum income of the driver was not less than Rs.9000/- per month. Keeping in view the pleadings and evidence on record, after making a guess work, it can be safely held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs.7000/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly held that the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- per month. Accordingly, it is held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs.7000/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly held that the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- per month. Accordingly, it is held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs.7000/- per month. Claimants are four in number and as per Sarla Verma’s case supra, 1/4th was to be deducted. After deducting 1/4th, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.5300/- per month. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5300x12x16= Rs.10,17,600/- under the head loss of source of dependency. 7. In addition, the claimants are also held entitled to compensation under the following four heads:- (i) Loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.40,000/- 8. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,17,600+ Rs.40,000=Rs.10,57,600/- with interest @7.5% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, within eight weeks from today in the Registry. The Registry, on deposit, is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account, or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, after proper verification. 10. The amount already deposited by the insurer in the Registry, be released in favour of the claimants, forthwith, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account, or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, after proper verification. 11. Viewed thus, the appeal is disposed of along with pending applications, compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. 12. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.