Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 655 (HP)

Karnail Singh v. Rattan Lal Gujjar

2016-05-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.6.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in MACP No. 45-N/II- 2007, titled Sh. Karnail Singh and another versus Rattan Lal and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- under “no fault liability” was granted in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, with Rs.2000/- as costs, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the tribunal has fallen in an error in recording the findings on issues No. 1 and 2. 3. Driver, owner and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is- whether the findings recorded on issues No. 1 and 2 are legally correct or otherwise? 5. I am of the considered view that the findings recorded on issues No. 1 and 2 are legally incorrect, for the following reasons. 6. Claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for the grant of compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that deceased Sukhwinder who was deployed as co-driver with Baru Singh Rajput on Tanker No. GQA-5331, met with an accident, suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 48/01 dated 6.4.2001 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act” was lodged at Police Station Prantiz (Gujarat) against the driver. 7. The claimants have led evidence and stated that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and also proved the FIR Ext. PW1/A which has remained un-rebutted. 8. The driver, owner and insurer have not led any evidence. The evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. The averments contained in the claim petition were evasively denied by the respondents. The Tribunal has fallen in error in recording the findings on issue No.1. Thus, it is held that the driver had driven the offending vehicle. i.e Tanker NO. GQA- 5331 and caused the accident. Accordingly, issue No. 1 decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 9. The Tribunal has fallen in error in recording the findings on issue No.1. Thus, it is held that the driver had driven the offending vehicle. i.e Tanker NO. GQA- 5331 and caused the accident. Accordingly, issue No. 1 decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 9. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 7. The onus to prove all these issues was on the respondents, have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided all these issues in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Respondents have not questioned the said findings, accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. 10. Issue No.2. The deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident and claimants has pleaded in the claim petition that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Taking his income as a labourer, he would have been earning Rs.4500/- per month. One half was to be deducted, keeping in view the 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 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 of “16” is applicable in view of the judgments referred to supra. 11. Thus, it is held that the claimants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2250x12x16= Rs. 4,32,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the three heads as under: (i) Loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.30,000/- Thus , in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,62,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of impugned award, keeping in view the facts of the case. 12. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the insurer is saddled with the liability and is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees? cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank account, in equal shares. 13. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 14. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees? cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank account, in equal shares. 13. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 14. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.