Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 450 (HP)

Mohan Lal v. Lalit Mohan

2016-04-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 13th March, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.168-MAC/2 of 2006, titled Sh. Mohan Singh vs. Sh. Lalit Mohan & others, whereby a sum of Rs.1,49,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The driver, the owner-insured and the insurer, have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount is inadequate. The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons. 4. The deceased Yash Pal, at the age of 24 years, became the victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by Rajinder Kumar (respondent No.2), while driving Swaraj Majda bearing registration No.HP-03B-0212 rashly and negligently on 14.8.2006, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, The claimant, being the father of the deceased Yash Pal, filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 6. The following issues came to be framed in the claim petition:- “1. Whether Yash Pal died on account of the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident involving truck/Tipper bearing No.HP-03B-0212 being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash or negligent on 14.8.2006 at place Kayardu Mine, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner being L.R. of the deceased is entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the driver of the truck did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle in question was plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with the respondents No.1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Relief .” 7. Whether the driver of the truck did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle in question was plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with the respondents No.1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Relief .” 7. In order to prove his claim, the claimant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also examined Vijay Singh as PW-2. The respondents, on the other hand, have not examined any witness. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the said vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the accident in which deceased Yash Pal lost his life. The said findings of the Tribunal are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are liable to be upheld and the same are upheld. 9. In regard to issues No.3, 4 and 5, the onus to prove the said issues was upon respondent No.3-insurer, has not led any evidence to prove the said issues and therefore, has not discharged the onus cast on it. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issues are also upheld. 10. Regarding issue No.2, which pertains to quantum of compensation, the claimant has pleaded that his son was working as labourer and also performing the job of a petty contractor. However, the claimant has not led any evidence to show that the deceased was performing the job of a contractor. The Tribunal, after appreciating the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence, has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month by working as a labourer, which, to my mind, is on the lower side. In common parlance, even a labourer does not earn less than Rs.150/- per day or say Rs.4,500/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month. 11. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death. In common parlance, even a labourer does not earn less than Rs.150/- per day or say Rs.4,500/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month. 11. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, the Tribunal has again fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd amount from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, rather 1/2 amount was to be deducted. Accordingly, the monthly loss of source dependency to the claimant can be said to be Rs.2,250/-. 12. It is admitted case of the parties that the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has incorrectly applied the multiplier of ‘12’. In view of Schedule II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the judgment made by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 15 is appropriate in the instant case. 13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the claimant lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,250x12x15= Rs.4,05,000/-. 14. In addition, the claimant is also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 15. Having said so, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.4,35,000/- as compensation under the following heads: 1. Loss of source of dependency Rs. 4,05,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 4,35,000/- 16. The above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, alongwith up-to-date interest, in the Registry of this Court, within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the said amount in favour of the claimant, through his bank account, after proper identification. 17. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, alongwith up-to-date interest, in the Registry of this Court, within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the said amount in favour of the claimant, through his bank account, after proper identification. 17. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 18. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.