Chief Engineer Gref, Jammu And Anr. vs . Lal Chand And Ors. on 13 March, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Chief Engineer Gref, Jammu And Anr. vs . Lal Chand And Ors. on 13 March, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 J AND K 472

1. Chief Engineer GREF, Jammu along with Union of India is in appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in claim No. 48/2014 dated 17.05.2016 titled Lal Chand and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

2. The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be noticed. On 29.11.2013, one Gulshan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who was driving his motorcycle was hit by a Tipper No. 05E63099X belonging to the appellants. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on 29.11.2013. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased preferred a claim petition against the appellants and respondent No. 3 (driver) and claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,60,000/- along with 7.5 % interest. The petition was contested by the appellants. The MA No. 171/2016 Page 1 of 4 Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues:-

"1. Whether an accident took place on 29.11.2013 at about 5.00 p.m near Degree College, Akhnoor by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. 05E63099X by its driver as a result of which deceased Gulshan Kumar alias Sonu suffered fatal injuries? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief. ? O.P Parties"

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) led their evidence and produced Lal Chand, Veena Devi, Vikas Kumar and Arun Kumar as their witnesses. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also entered the witness box in support of their claim. No evidence was, however, led by the respondents in rebuttal. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence led and arguments advanced, disposed of the claim petition and held respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,60,000/-.

4. The appellants are aggrieved of the award of compensation on the ground that the same is exorbitant and not supported by material on record. It is claimed that as per the evidence that has come on record, the deceased was a Mechanic in a workshop in Akhnoor (rural area) and, therefore, could not have been expected to be earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-. The appellants have also disputed the payment of Rs.

MA No. 171/2016 Page 2 of 4

25,000/- and Rs. 1 lac on account of love and affection on the ground that the award on these heads is not in consonance with the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.; 2017 ACJ 2700.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the award needs only slight variation. The plea of the appellants that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) have not sufficiently proved that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/- at the time of his death, cannot be accepted in the face of statement of the employer of the deceased, who has not only appeared as a witness but has proved the salary certificate issued by him. There are two other independent witnesses examined by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) in support of the aforesaid issue.

6. As already noticed, there is neither any evidence led in rebuttal by the appellants nor the appellants have brought out anything during the cross examination of the witnesses of the claimants which would show that the deceased was not earning Rs. 15,000/- per month or was earning any amount less than Rs. 15,000/-.

7. After carefully going through the evidence led in the case, I am persuaded to concur with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the amount awarded under the head "loss of dependence" as Rs. 24,30,000/- is not interfered with. However, as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) would be entitled to funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and loss of estate to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-. Instead of awarding compensation under the head "loss of love and affection", the compensation should be payable under the head "filial consortium".

MA No. 171/2016 Page 3 of 4

8. Accordingly, the amount payable to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) would be in the following manner:-

(i) Loss of dependence :- Rs. 24,30,000/-

                                        (ii) Funeral expenses     :- Rs. 15,000/-

                                        (iii) Filial consortium

                                              To parents          :-Rs.40,000/-×2=Rs. 80,000/-
                                        (iv) Loss of estate       :- Rs. 15,000/-

                                               Total              :- Rs. 25,40,000/-

9. The appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified in the above terms. Let the respondents deposit the balance amount of compensation payable to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of two months from today.

10. Disposed of.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu:

13.03.2019 Tarun TARUN KUMAR GUPTA 2019.03.14 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document MA No. 171/2016 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court