Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sheela Devi And Others on 21 August, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.113 of 2009
Date of decision: 21.08.2015
.
The Divisional Manager, HRTC .....Appellant
Versus
Sheela Devi and others ..... Respondents
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
rt
For the appellant: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Y.Paul and Mr.Dinesh Kumar,
Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.L.N. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.4 and 5.
_______________________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)
By the medium of instant appeal, the appellant-
HRTC has questioned the award, dated 18th October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No.50 of 2006, tilted Sheela Devi and others vs. The Divisional Manager, HRTC and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,97,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:47:16 :::HCHP ...2...
and the appellant-HRTC was saddled with the liability, (for .
short the "impugned award").
2. The claimants, the driver and the conductor of the offending bus have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus the same has attained finality so far as it of relates to them. Only the appellant-HRTC, being the owner, has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the rt amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
Thus, the only question needs to be determined is
- Whether the amount of compensation is excessive?
3. I have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal, in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned award, has rightly made discussion while deciding issue No.2 and has rightly assessed the income of the deceased after making deductions towards his personal expenses. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, who was 31 years at the relevant point of time, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of
14. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:47:16 :::HCHP ...3...
the higher side, but appears to be meager. However, the .
claimants have not assailed the impugned award, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld.
5. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The Registry is of directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award.
rt
August 21, 2015 ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
(tilak) Chief Justice
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:47:16 :::HCHP