Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 786 (HP)

Masto Devi v. Guman Singh

2016-05-13

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 12.1.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1 Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 30-MAC/2 of 2008, titled Smt. Masto Devi and another versus Shri Guman Singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,13,000/-, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants and owner came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants by the medium of FAO No. 88 of 2010 have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation and owner by the medium of FAO No. 445 of 2010 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling him with the liability and exonerating the insurer from the liability. 3. The only question to be determined in FAO No. 88 of 2010 is-whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 4. I have gone through the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the amount awarded is inadequate for the following reasons. 5. The Tribunal has held while discussing issue No. 2 in para 22 that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- per month but deducted 2/3rd towards his personal expenses which is not legally correct. 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, in terms of para 30 one half was to be deducted. It is apt to reproduce para 30 of the judgment rendered in Sarla Verma’s case supra herein. “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. It is apt to reproduce para 30 of the judgment rendered in Sarla Verma’s case supra herein. “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 6. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident. The multiplier of “14” was applicable in view of 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. 7. However, in the interest of justice, it is held that the claimants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1500x12x14= Rs. 2,52,000/-. I also hold the claimants 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. 2,82,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award, keeping view the facts of the case. 8. Now coming to the owner’s appeal being FAO No. 445 of 2010. I have gone through the findings returned on issue No. 3. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle alongwith his goods/repaired tyres. It is not the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the driver had hired the truck for carrying goods. Thus, on the face of it, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion while returning the findings on issue No. 3 in paras 16 to 20 of the impugned award. It is not the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the driver had hired the truck for carrying goods. Thus, on the face of it, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion while returning the findings on issue No. 3 in paras 16 to 20 of the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion while returning the findings on issue No. 3. But the insurer was to be directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery, in order to protect the third party rights for the reasons that the factum of insurance is admitted and rights of third party cannot be defeated. Thus, the insurer is directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery. 9. Insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today, if not already deposited, with right of recovery from the owner. 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 accounts. 10. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.