Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2632 (HP)

Dolma Devi v. Mohinder Kumar Goel

2016-12-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the common award, dated 15th September, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short, the Tribunal), in Case MAC No. 70 of 2007, titled Dolma Devi and Others vs. Mohinder Kumar Goel and Others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.17,83,640/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed appeal i.e. FAO No. 168 of 2012 for enhancement of compensation and the insurer has challenged the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 334 of 2012 on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly saddled it with the liability. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Admittedly, the deceased was a Constable in the Police Department and was drawing Rs.13,064/- per month as salary. Salary certificate of the deceased was proved on record as Ext.PW- 4/A. The deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. Keeping in view the number of claimants i.e. 4, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 5. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned award and awarded compensation, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be meager or excessive. 6. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 334 of 2012 on the ground that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner had committed willful breach. Copy of the driving licence has been proved on record as Ext.R-2, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner had committed willful breach or violation of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. The Tribunal, while determining issues no. 3 and 4, has made detailed discussion and has rightly decided the said issues against the insurer. 7. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner had committed willful breach or violation of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. The Tribunal, while determining issues no. 3 and 4, has made detailed discussion and has rightly decided the said issues against the insurer. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in both the appeals and the same are dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of. 8. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award, through their respective bank accounts, after proper verification. CMP No. 10100 of 2016 in FAO No. 334 of 2012 9. This application has been moved by respondents/claimants no. 2 and 3 with the prayer that they may be proceeded in the appeal in their individual capacity, since, during the pendency of the appeal, they attained the age of majority. The application is allowed and the factum of claimants no. 2 and 3 of their having attained majority is taken on record.