Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Tara Devi & Others vs Hrtc And Others on 19 June, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 396 of 2008.
Date of decision: 19 .06.2015.
.
Smt. Tara Devi & others .....Appellants
Versus
HRTC and others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes.
For the appellants: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
r Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
__________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice,(Oral).
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellant stated at the Bar that respondent No. 3 Bhagat Ram has died. She prayed that name of respondent No. 3 may be ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents since his legal representatives are already on record. Her statement is taken on record. The name of respondent No. 3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents on the oral request of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award dated 24.3.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 1-S/2 of 2007, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,44,000/- alongwith 9% interest per annum came to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:26 :::HCHP -2- be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the respondents and the insurer was saddled with the liability, for short "the impugned award".
.
3. The claimants have disputed the adequacy of compensation, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
4. The insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them.
5. The claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short the Act, for the grant of compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on account of death of deceased Ved Prakash in an accident which took place on 1.10.2006 at Chungari Mour on Kasauli-
Parwanoo road, caused by respondent No. 2 Mohan Lal, who was driving HRTC Bus bearing Registration No. HP-
12-A-4068 rashly and negligently.
6. Respondents have resisted the averments contained in the claim petition and following issues came to be framed.
(i) Whether the accident in which the death of Ved Prakash took place was the result of rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. HP-12-4068 by respondent No.2? ......OPP
(ii) If issue No. 1 proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, to what extent? ......OPR
(iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable?
...OPR ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:26 :::HCHP -3-
(iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? ........ OPR
(v) Relief.
.
7. Claimants have examined as many as five witnesses, including Smt. Tara Devi widow of the deceased, who herself stepped into the witness box as PW4.
8. Respondents have not examined any witness.
9. The Tribunal, after scanning, thrashing and marshaling the evidence, held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization.
10. The insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1, 3 and 4, thus the findings returned on these issues are upheld.
11. Now coming to issue No. 2. Admittedly, the deceased was a government employee, has drawn his last salary as Rs.7103/- vide Ext. PW4/A. The claimants are widow, two daughters and one minor son and 1/4th was to be deducted from the income of the deceased, in view of the ratio laid down in 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.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:26 :::HCHP -4-12. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd. Thus, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.5300/- per .
month.
13. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of "11" in view of the Schedule appended to the Act, read with Munna Lal Jain and another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in JT 2015 (5) SC 1. It is apt to reproduce paras 12 and 14 of the said judgment herein:
"12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote:
"36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma."
13. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
14. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs.12,000.00 by the High Court."
14. In view of the Schedule appended to the Act read with the judgment supra, the multiplier of "13" was to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:26 :::HCHP -5- be applied. Accordingly, the multiplier of "13" is applicable and is applied.
15. The claimants have also pleaded that the .
deceased was earning some income from the agricultural sources but has failed to prove the same. The Tribunal has rightly refused to grant the said prayer.
16. Viewed thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5300x12=Rs.63,600x13=8,26,800/- with Rs.10,000/-
as funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- for loss of happiness of married life and Rs.20,000/- for love and affection.
Accordingly, the amount awarded is enhanced to Rs.8,26,800/-+Rs.50,000= Rs.8,76,800/- with 9% interest, as awarded by the Tribunal.
17. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount in the Registry within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimants, through payees' cheque account, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award.
18. Resultantly, the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
19. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.
June 19, 2015, (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
(cm Thakur) Chief Justice.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:26 :::HCHP