Allowed

Anand Rani v. Anil Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2016FAO/66/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation for the death of an elderly person deceased from Rs. 1.1 lakh to Rs. 6.4 lakh. The court applied a multiplier of five based on age and clarified distribution among heirs.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded at Rs. 6,40,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum directed to be deposited by the insurer.

Anand Rani Vs Anil Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

FAO (MVA) No. 66 of 2010 Date of decision: 1^st April,2016

¶3

Smt. Anand Rani and others . …..Appellants. Versus Sh. Anil Kumar and others …Respondents

¶4

Coram:

¶5

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

¶6

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ Yes.

¶7

For the appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶8

_____________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral)

¶9

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.10.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 13 of 2008, titled Smt. Anand Rani and others vesus Sh. Anil Kumar and others , for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant No. 1 Smt. Anand Rani, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short.

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

¶11

¶12

The claimants have questioned the

¶13

impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation and also that all the claimants are entitled to compensation.

¶14

The driver, owner and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them.

¶15

Claimants had sought compensation as per

¶16

the breaks-ups given in the claim petition which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed.

¶17

(i) Whether the deceased Siri Ram Joshi died in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2 owned by respondent No. 1? OPP

¶18

(ii) If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

¶19

(iii) Whether the vehicle was being plied ion contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation?

¶20

(iv) Relief.

¶21

¶22

Parties have led the evidence.

¶23

There is no dispute about issues No. 1 and

¶24

The dispute revolves around issue No. 2 only.

¶25

¶26

Admittedly, the deceased was 83 years of

¶27

age at the time of accident and was drawing Rs.15878/- as pension at the time of death. The claimants are sons, daughters and widow. All the claimants are entitled to compensation as they have lost father and husband. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant prayed that the amount may be awarded only in favour of the widow. Thus, the compensation is to be awarded only to the widow.

¶28

The claimant has lost source of income and partner during the old age. Money is no substitute. Keeping all the things in view, it can be safely said that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month keeping in view the 2^nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, for short the Act, read with 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 , multiplier of “5” is applicable in this

¶29

case.

¶30

¶31

9. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to

¶32

the tune of Rs.10,000x12x5= Rs.6,00,000/-, under the head “Loss of income”

¶33

I hold that the claimants are also entitled to

¶34

compensation under the following heads as under:

¶35

(i) Loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/(ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/(iv) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.40,000/-

¶36

Accordingly, the total amount of

¶37

compensation is awarded in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs.6,00,000+Rs.40,000/-=Rs.6,40,000/-.

¶38

Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.6,40,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award on the enhanced amount.

¶39

Having said so, the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount in this Registry within

¶40

six weeks from today. The Registry, on deposit of the amount, is directed to release the same in favour of the

¶41

¶42

claimant Anand Rani Joshi, through payees’ cheque

¶43

account or by deposing the same in her bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the

¶44

impugned award.

¶45

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Send down the record forthwith, after

¶47

placing a copy of this judgment.

¶48

April 01, 2016. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) (cm Thakur) Chief Justice.

Anand Rani v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Rani v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sheela Devi

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Savitri Devi

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Dhaman Dutt Sharma

Satish Kumar Vs Tarun Jain

Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pawan Kumar

Tarun Jain Vs Satish Sood