Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reena Devi And Others vs Narender Kumar And Another on 13 May, 2016
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No. 255 of 2010.
Decided on : 13.05.2016
Reena Devi and others .....Appellants
Versus
.
Narender Kumar and another ..... Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellants: Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
of
For the respondents: Mr.H.C. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr.J.S. Bagga, Advocate, for
rt respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral):
This appeal is directed against the award, dated 1st September, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.4-S/2 of 2006, titled Reena Devi and others vs. Narender Kumar and another, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP 22. Neither the insurer nor the owner-cum-driver has questioned the impugned award, therefore, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them.
.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
of
4. Thus, the only controversy needs to be settled in this appeal is - Whether the amount awarded by the rt Tribunal is inadequate or otherwise?
5. In order to answer the said question, a brief reference may be made to the facts of the case.
6. Claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act) pleading therein that on 2nd September, 2005, Devi Singh (since deceased) was traveling in truck bearing No.HP-63-1217 alongwith his goods.
When the said truck reached at Narkanda, being driven by respondent No.1, namely, Narender Kumar, rashly and negligently, it met with an accident as a result of which the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP 3 said Devi Singh died on the spot. Thus, the claimants, being the widow and minor daughters of the deceased, filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 .
lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. The Tribunal, after exercising the guess work, held of that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side. The claimants in rt the claim petition specifically pleaded that the deceased was the owner of the landed property with full grown orchards and was earning Rs.6,00,000/- per annum from orchards.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It was also submitted the deceased was a horticulturist, by profession, as has been pleaded in the claim petition too, and his income cannot be said to be Rs.3,000/- per month.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP 410. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case Vidya Devi vs. Shri Naresh Kumar and another & connected matters, .
2015 (Supp.) Him. L.R. 1959, wherein the deceased was an agriculturist and horticulturist, and it was held that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month. Taking a cue from the above decision, the learned counsel for the of appellants submitted that, in the instant case also, since the deceased was a horticulturist, his income, by no stretch of rt imagination, can be said to be below Rs.6,000/- per month.
11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a horticulturist. Now a days, even a labourer earns Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, it is apparent that the Tribunal has fallen into an error in holding that the deceased, at the time of his death, was earning Rs.3,000/-
per month. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, by guess work, it is held that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs.6,000/- at the time of his death.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP 512. Admittedly, the claimants, in the present case, are four in number. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased towards his .
personal expenses. However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex of Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, 1/4th amount was to be rt deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
Thus, after deducting 1/4th amount, the loss of source of dependency to the claimants can be said to be Rs.4,500/-
per month.
13. The deceased Devi Singh, at the time of accident, was 36 years of age. Therefore, multiplier of 14 is appropriate and has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,500 x 12 x 14 = 7,56,000/- under the head loss of source of dependency.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP 615. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.30,000/- on account of conventional charges, which appears to be just and appropriate and is maintained accordingly.
.
16. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,86,000/-, as under:
i) Loss of source of dependency : Rs.7,56,000/-.
of
ii) Conventional charges : Rs.30,000/-
____________________ rt Total: Rs.7,86,000/-.
_____________________
17. As far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which appears to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum and it is held that the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization.
18. The enhanced amount be deposited by the insurer within a period of six weeks from today in the Registry of this Court, and on deposit, the Registry is directed to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP 7 release the entire amount in favour of the claimants forthwith, as per the terms contained in the impugned award.
.
19. The impugned award is modified as indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
May 13, 2016. ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
(Tilak) Chief Justice
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:21:05 :::HCHP