Allowed

Sudesh Rani v. Lajya Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC6 May 2016FAO/12/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that the Tribunal undervalued the deceased's income, enhancing it from Rs.3,500 to Rs.4,500 per month, resulting in a modified compensation of Rs.4,25,000.

What did the court decide?

Modified the award by enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.4,25,000 and increased interest rate to 7.5% per annum.

Sudesh Rani Vs Lajya Ram — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

FAO No. 12 of 2010. Decided on : 06.05.2016 Sudesh Rani and another …..Appellants Versus Lajya Ram and others ….. Respondents

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice

¶5

Whether approved for reporting? yes. For the appellants: Mr.Lalit Sehgal, Proxy Counsel. For the respondents: Nemo for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶6

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice(Oral)

¶7

Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 1^st October, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.31 of 2007, titled Sudesh Rani and another vs. Lajya Ram and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability. In the event of the insurer not depositing the amount within two months from the date of the impugned award, the amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum, till the payment is made, (for short, the impugned award).

¶8

¶9

Neither the insurer nor the driver and the owner have

¶10

questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have challenged the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation.

¶11

Before the above question is answered, a brief reference may be made to the facts of the case. It is averred in the claim petition that on 16^th August, 2007, deceased Gaurav Kumar Kaushal had been walking alongside the National Highway at Gagret, District Una, when, at 9.45 a.m., a truck bearing No.HP-12A-9624, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely, Raman Singh, hit the deceased, as a result of which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same lateron. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of death.

¶12

The claimants (appellants herein), being the unfortunate parents, filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

¶13

The respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award.

¶15

¶16

Since only the claimants have laid challenge to the impugned award, therefore, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side?

¶17

The claimants have specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased, in addition to household works, had also been doing the insurance business, and thus, was earning Rs.26,000/- per month from all sources. The Tribunal, in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned award, has made discussion and held that the claimants were not able to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.26,000/- per month, as claimed in the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal, taking into account the fact that the income of a labourer would not be more than 3,500/- per month, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month, which is not legally correct and is apparently on the lower side. Even a labourer was earning not less than Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month on the said date. Thus, it can safely be held that the income of the deceased, per month, at the time of his death, was Rs.4,500/-.

¶18

Admittedly, the deceased, at the time of death, was a bachelor. Thus, keeping in view the mandate of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport

¶19

¶20

Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, 1/2 has to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, after deducting 1/2 from the income of the deceased, I hold that the claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,250/- per month.

¶21

In addition, keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years and the mandate of Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) read with 2^nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier of 15 is applicable in the instant case.

¶22

Thus, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.2250 x 12 x 15 = 4,05,000/-, under the head ‘loss of source of dependency’.

¶23

Apart from the above, the claimants are also awarded Rs.10,000/- each under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘funeral expenses’.

¶24

As far as interest is concerned, 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 deposit.

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled

¶27

to the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,05,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.4,25,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5%, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited.

¶28

The impugned award stands modified as indicated above. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount, alongwith up-todate interest, forthwith in favour of the claimants through their bank account(s), strictly in terms of the impugned award.

¶29

The appeal is allowed and stands disposed of

¶30

accordingly.

¶31

Copy dasti.

¶32

May 06, 2016. ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) (Tilak) Chief Justice

Sudesh Rani v. Lajya Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Rani v. Lajya Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Singh Vs Pawan Kumar

Meera Devi Vs J.D.Verma

Sandeep Mahajan Vs Surjeet Singh

Brahm Parkash Vs Devki Devi

Bhima Gupta Vs Bhim Singh Chauhan

Hrtc Vs Sudha Thakur