Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 456 (HP)

Ranbir Singh v. Santosh Kumari

2016-04-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. - Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 21st December, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.A.C. Petition No. 45 of 2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 herein and against the respondents-appellants, herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned award'). 2. The claimants have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The driver and owner have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the accident was not the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. HR-58-1982, but was caused by the driver of scooter bearing registration No. HR-01F-6065, while driving it, rashly and negligently. 5. In order to determine the question raised, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal. 6. Hari Om Parbhakar became victim of the motor vehicle accident, which was caused by driver, namely, Ranbir Singh, while driving bus bearing registration No. HR-58- 1982, rashly and negligently, on 28.06.2006, near Jawahargarh, at about 11.00 p.m., hit Tata Sumo bearing registration No. PB-32-B-5567, deceased Hari Om Parbhakar sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The claimants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether Sh. Hari Om Prabhakar died in the motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Bus (No. HR-58-1982) by Sh. Ranbir Singh respondent 1? ..OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR 1 and 2 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the drivers, the owners and the insurers of the vehicles namely Tata Sum (PB-32B- 5567) and scooter No. (PB-01-F-6065) as party to the petition? Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR 1 and 2 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the drivers, the owners and the insurers of the vehicles namely Tata Sum (PB-32B- 5567) and scooter No. (PB-01-F-6065) as party to the petition? ...OPR 1 and 2 5. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sum (PB-32B-5567) by Pankaj Kumar? ...OPR 1 and 2 6. Relief" 9. The parties have led evidence. Issues No. 1. & 5 10. I have gone through the record. There is sufficient evidence on the record, which does disclose that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. It is apt to record herein that FIR No. 185/2006, under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, Police Statin Mulana, District Ambala, was registered against the driver of the bus and the said case is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on the record, which does disclose that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Accordingly, the fining's returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 1 & 5 are upheld. 11. Before dealing with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 & 4. Issue No. 3 12. It was for the appellants-driver and owner to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, has not led any evidence. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 3 against the respondents. Issue No. 4. 13. The driver and owner have failed to show how the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 14. Regarding issue No. 2, the Tribunal has made discussion in para-14 of the impugned award. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 55 years, was working with National Hydro Power Corporation and voluntarily retired. The finding of the Tribunal that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month, appears to be reasonable. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5', which is too meager. However, the claimants have not questioned the same. 15. The finding of the Tribunal that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month, appears to be reasonable. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5', which is too meager. However, the claimants have not questioned the same. 15. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing it in their accounts. 17. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.