Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 77 (HP)

Neena Shukla v. Amar Singh

2016-01-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. FAO No.180 of 2009 and FAO No.274 of 2009 Both these appeals are directed against the award, dated 17th January, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in claim petition No.65 of 2006, titled Neena Shukla and another vs. Amar Singh and others, came to be granted in favour of the claimants on account of the death of their son Akshay Kumar, and the insured came to be saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation by way of FAO No.180 of 2009 and the insured has challenged the same by filing FAO No.274 of 2009 on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the insured with the liability. FAO No.447 of 2010: 3. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant/insured has laid challenge to the award, dated 1st September, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.7 of 2008, titled Mansha Ram vs. Amar Singh and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and the claimant Mansha Ram was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,68,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till deposit, and the insured came to be saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 4. All the appeals are the outcome of one accident, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Facts: 5. Claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), by the medium of Claim Petitions. 4. All the appeals are the outcome of one accident, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Facts: 5. Claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), by the medium of Claim Petitions. It was pleaded that on 17th April, 2005, deceased Akshay Kumar, aged 7 years, was traveling on scooter No.PB-25/A-4341 as pillion rider, which was being driven by Mansha Ram, and all of a sudden, a car bearing No.HP-51-1372, came from the backside, hit the scooter as a result of which Mansha Ram and the deceased Akshay Kumar fell on the road and in the meantime, a truck bearing No.HP19/A-2774, being driven by original respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the claimant Mansha Ram and the deceased Akshay Kumar as a result of which the claimant and Akshay Kumar sustained injuries. Akshay Kumar died on the way to the hospital, whereas the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. 6. Thus, Claim Petition No.65 of 2006 was filed by the claimants, being father and mother of deceased Akshay Kumar, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, while Claim Petition No.7 of 2008 was filed by claimant Mansha Ram on account of injuries sustained by him. Both the Claim Petitions were allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned awards, as detailed above. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned awards as well as the record of the cases. 8. Moot question involved in FAO Nos.274 of 2009 and 447 of 2010 is whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer from its liability, while in FAO No.180 of 2009, the question needs to be answered is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise. 9. The Tribunal has recorded findings in the impugned awards that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident on the ground that the licence had already expired on 20th March, 2005, while the accident had taken place on 17th April, 2005. Perhaps, the Tribunal has lost sight of the mandate of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), which provides as under:- “14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. Perhaps, the Tribunal has lost sight of the mandate of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), which provides as under:- “14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. – (1)……….. ……………….. (2) …………. ……………. Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.” 10. Thus, from a bare reading of the above proviso attached to Section 14 of the Act, it is crystal clear that the licence remains effective for a period of “thirty days” from the date of its expiry. In the instant case, as has been discussed above, the licence had expired on 20th March, 2005 and the accident took place on 17th April, 2005, meaning thereby that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 11. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Accordingly, both the appeals i.e. FAO No.274 of 2009 and FAO No.447 of 2010, filed by the insured/owner, are allowed and the insurer is saddled with the liability. 12. Coming to FAO No.180 of 2009, filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of their son Akshay Kumar, the Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding a meager compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. The deceased was 7 years of age at the time of accident. 13. This Court in a similar case in FAO No.143 and 144 of 2008, decided on 29th May, 2015, after making the guess work and relying upon the law expounded by the Apex Court, held the claimants entitled to Rs.4,80,000/-. 14. I have gone through the impugned award and the record. The claimants, in the instant case, are the unfortunate parents who lost their son of 7 years of age in the accident. Thus, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation and award Rs.4.00 lacs, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till the amount is deposited. 15. The claimants, in the instant case, are the unfortunate parents who lost their son of 7 years of age in the accident. Thus, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation and award Rs.4.00 lacs, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till the amount is deposited. 15. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned awards, subject matter of FAO No. 274 of 2009 and FAO No. 447 of 2009 are modified to the extent that the insurer is held liable to pay the compensation. The award impugned in FAO No. 180 of 2009 is also modified by providing that the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 4.00 lacs, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till deposit. 16. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, as above, within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. The statutory amount deposited by the insured in FAO Nos. 274 of 2009 and 447 of 2010 is also awarded in favour of the claimants as costs throughout. 17. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.