Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 534 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. VIMLA MEHTA

2019-09-27

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) This is an appeal filed by the State Government challenging the Award dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardwar in M.A.C.T. No. 71 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,96,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Six Thousand only). 2. Brief facts of the case are on 28.12.2007, Rajeet Mehta (deceased) was coming along with his wife Smt. Ritu Mehta and his brother-in-law Sri S.K. Anand from Vikas Nagar to Haridwar by Maruti Zen car bearing registration no. DL-3-CJ-1199. The vehicle was being driven by Rajeev Mehta. At about 02:30 P.M., as soon as they reached near petrol pump Bairagiwala, an Ambulance bearing registration no. UA-07B-6283 which was owned by the Director of Family Welfare Service, Government of Uttarakhand and was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed on to the Maruti Zen car driven by Rajeev Mehta. As a result of this accident, Rajeev Mehta and Smt. Ritu Mehta sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the hospital, where Rajeev Mehta passed away due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The first information report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sahsapur, District Dehradun. 3. A claim petition was filed by the mother of the deceased (claimant no. 1), widow of the deceased (claimant no. 2) and children of the deceased (claimant nos. 3 & 4) claiming a compensation of Rs. 17,35,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Thirty Five Thousand only). It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was in trade and business and earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month. The accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Ambulance No. UA-07B-6283. 4. Written statement was filed by the respondents, and on the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Did the deceased Rajeev Mehta succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident on 28.12.2007 at 2:30 PM near petrol pump Bairagiwala P.S. Sahaspur District Dehradun, which occurred while he was going in his Maruti Car No. DL-3-CJ-1199, and did the Ambulance No. UA07B-6283 owned by Director of Family Welfare Service Uttarakhand Government Dehradun, was being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, which hit the Maruti Car of the deceased?" 2. Was the Ambulance no. Was the Ambulance no. UA07B-6283 being driven without valid & effective driving license & relevant papers such as registration certificate, fitness & insurance policy against the terms & conditions of the policy at the time of alleged accident? 3. Was the Maruti Zen car no. DL-3-CJ-1199 being driven without valid driving license by its driver? 4. What amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled to get & from whom?" 5. While deciding issue no. 1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ambulance No. UA07B-6282 and there was no negligence on the part of the Maruti Car. This finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence form of PW 1, who was also a co-passenger and sustained injuries in the said accident. She has categorically said in her examination-in-chief that car was going on normal speed but the Ambulance was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. This witness PW 1 was put to cross-examination but nothing worthwhile has come which may make her statement unbelievable. 6. As regarding issue nos. 2 & 3, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicles involved in the accident were being driven by the persons having a valid driving licence. 7. As regarding compensation, the learned Tribunal relied upon the income tax return of the deceased for the year 2002-03, where his annual income has been shown as Rs. 60,800/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred only). Out of this amount, considering the number of dependants, the learned Tribunal deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses and calculated the annual dependency income as Rs. 45,600/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred only). Thereafter, keeping in view the age of the deceased as 41 years, a multiplier of 15 was adopted and the total dependency income was calculated as Rs. 6,84,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty Four Thousand only). 8. Apart from the above, the learned Tribunal also awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards funeral expenses. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 6,96,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Six Thousand only) has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with six per cent interest per annum, to be paid by respondent nos. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards funeral expenses. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 6,96,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Six Thousand only) has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with six per cent interest per annum, to be paid by respondent nos. 1 & 2. 9. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. 10. The learned Tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has rightly awarded the compensation. There is no anomaly in the award passed by the Tribunal, which calls for no interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let the entire amount be deposited by the respondents with the concerned Tribunal along with six per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after adjusting the amount already paid. Let the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) be also remitted to the concerned Tribunal. After the amount is deposited by the insurance company, let the same be released in favour of the claimants forthwith. By the Court's order, the amount liable to be given to claimant nos. 3 & 4 were directed to be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). Let the Fixed Deposit Receipt be encashed and given to them as they have now attained majority. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the concerned Tribunal for onward compliance.