Dismissed

U.O.I. Th. Min. of Defence and Ors. v. Vinay Kumari and Ors.

J&K HC9 Sept 2021MA/114/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the High Court found no merit in the appellants' challenges to the finding of negligence and the amount of compensation awarded for the death of Jagdish Kumar. The Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of income and multiplier, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant was directed to deposit the awarded compensation with the Court Registry.

U.O.I. Th. Min. of Defence and Ors. Vs Vinay Kumari and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

¶2

AT JAMMU

¶3

MA No.114/2010 IA No.189/2010

¶4

Union of India and others

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Through:- Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC

¶7

V/s

¶8

Vinay Kumari and another ...Respondent(s)

¶9

Through:- Mr.Akash Gupta, Advocate

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT

¶11

Union of India and its functionaries are in appeal against the award dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in File No.471/claim titled Vijay Kumar and another v. Union of India and others, whereby the respondents-claimants have been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar.

¶12

The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that on 19.02.2006 at about 3.30 p.m., when deceased Jagdish Kumar was going on a scooter bearing Regd. No.JK02AA-9990 from Jammu to Akhnoor, an army vehicle bearing Regd. No.5D164661K, that was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver i.e. appellant No.1, hit the deceased Jagdish Kumar near Dhoi Morh, as a result of which deceased suffered serious injuries. The deceased-Jagdish Kumar succumbed to the injuries

¶13

2 MA No.114/2010

¶14

later on. The deceased was stated to be 34 years of age and was running a shop in Akhnoor under the name and style of M/s Sawhney Studio. The income of the deceased was stated to be Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶15

3 The respondent No.1 the widow and respondent No.2 minor daughter of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereby claiming a sum of Rs.35,90,000/- as compensation. On being put on notice, the appellants appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

¶16

“1. Whether an accident occurred on 19-2-2006 near village at Dhoi Morh on Jammu-Akhnoor road by rash and negligent driving of the offending army vehicle No.JK02AA-9990 in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Jagdish Kumar sustained fatal injuries? OPP

¶17

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

¶18

3. Relief.”

¶19

Respondent No.1, besides appearing herself as her witness, examined PW-Mohinder Singh and PW Romesh Sharma as her witnesses in support of her claim. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led by the respondents before it, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3^rd therefrom on account of personal expenses and applying the

¶20

3 MA No.114/2010

¶21

multiplier of 15, the Tribunal awarded following amount of compensation in favour of the claimants:-

¶22

“1. For loss of dependency : Rs.7,20,000.00 2. For Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 3.For consortium to widow : Rs.15,000.00

¶23

Total Rs.7,50,000.00

¶24

The appellants assail the award of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the alleged accident, which resulted in death of the deceased Jagdish Kumar had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter that was being driven by the deceased. It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and unjust.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶26

Insofar as first contention of the appellants is concerned, the claimants have, by leading cogent and convincing evidence proved the occurrence and according to the eye witness, namely, Mohiner Singh, the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the army vehicle. FIR relating to the accident also corroborates this statement. There is no rebuttal to the evidence led by the claimants on this issue. In fact, the appellants did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal and not even the driver of the army vehicle was examined before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the version of occurrence given by

¶27

4 MA No.114/2010

¶28

the claimants has remained un-rebutted and as such, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rashness and negligence on part of the driver of the army vehicle. Therefore, the said finding does not call for any interference.

¶29

As regards the second contention of the appellants, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be exorbitant.

¶30

The claimants have examined PW-Romesh Sharma, who has stated that the deceased was running business in his shop under the name “Sawhney Studio” as also the business of repairing STD machines. According to this witness, the deceased was earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month. There is nothing in his crossexamination to disbelieve his statement.

¶31

The record of the Tribunal shows that the claimants have placed on record the certificate showing that the deceased was selling recharge coupons of BSNL on commission basis. There is another certificate EXPW-RS, according to which, the deceased was expert in repairing of STD/PCO machines. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. The same, therefore, does not call for any interference.

¶32

5 MA No.114/2010

¶33

The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 whereas in

¶34

terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6

¶35

SCC 121 , multiplier of 16 is provided for the age group of 31-35. The Tribunal has rightly applied 1/3^rd deduction on account of personal expenses and granted Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- on account of loss consortium to the widow.

¶36

In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents/claimants, who have lost the only earning member of their family, cannot be held to be excessive or exorbitant.

¶37

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant No.1 shall deposit the amount of compensation in terms of the impugned award with the Registry of this Court within a period of one month, if not already deposited, whereafter the amount shall be released in favour of the respondents in terms of the impugned award.

¶38

( Sanjay Dhar) Judge

¶39

JAMMU.

¶40

09.09.2021 Vinod, PS

¶41

Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes

U.O.I. Th. Min. of Defence and Ors. v. Vinay Kumari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.O.I. Th. Min. of Defence and Ors. v. Vinay Kumari and Ors.

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

Umesh Kumar Koul and Ors. Vs Chander Prabha and Ors.

Balwan Singh Vs Pawan Singh

Anuradha Gadroo Vs Rajesh Thusoo

Anita Attri Vs Punjab and Sind Bank

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jabeena Begum and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Gulnaz Begum and Ors.