Dismissed

Smt. Shanti and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Khanna and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC10 May 2013AO/411/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed an appeal filed by the widow and sons of a deceased mason against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Tribunal had fixed compensation at Rs. 2,36,000 based on an assessed annual income of Rs. 36,000. The Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment as just and proper.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The award of compensation by the Tribunal was upheld.

Smt. Shanti and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar Khanna and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal From Order No. 411 of 2012

¶3

Smt. Shanti W/o Late Asha Ram,

¶4

Sunil Kumar S/o Late Asha Ram,

¶5

Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Asha Ram All R/o Village Kherikalan, P.O. Satyanarayan Mandir, P.S. Raiwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

¶6

….…..Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Manoj Kumar Khanna S/o Late Harinarayan Khanna, R/o P.G. 495 Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi 42 through Power of Attorney Holder Ashok Kumar, R/o 340/1 Ganganahar, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

¶9

Surendra Kumar S/o Dimag Prasad, R/o Khanna Goods Carrier U.P. Border Ghaziabad through his local office 340/1 Ganga Nagar Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

¶10

Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Rishipal, R/o Bullawala, P.S. Doiwala, District Dehradun.

¶11

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor, Near Madhuban Hotel, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, through Manager.

¶12

……. Respondents

¶13

Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the appellants. Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, present for the respondents.

¶14

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶15

This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 24.03.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in Motor

¶16

¶17

Accident Claims Case No. 33 of 2010, whereby said Tribunal has awarded ` 2,36,000/- as compensation to the appellants. The appellants have sought enhancement of compensation amount.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the Tribunal.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2009, at about 10.15 a.m. Asha Ram (deceased) was going on his bicycle from his Village Khairikalan to Chhidarwala. Near Oneshwar temple, truck bearing Registration H.R. 63A/1515, which was being driven rashly and negligently collided with the bicycle and Asha Ram suffered injuries and succumbed to injuries in the Government Hospital. He was 58 He was a mason. The aged years. claimants/appellants are widow and sons of the deceased. They claimed ` 11,67,000/- as compensation.

¶20

The claim petition was contested by the opposite parties, who filed their written statements. It was denied by the respondents that the deceased was earning income of `10,000/-. It was also pleaded that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle carefully. Insurance Company also took plea that the vehicle was not been driven with the valid papers.

¶21

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, following four issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

¶22

¶23

1. Whether on 24.12.2009, at about 10.15 a.m. truck bearing Registration H.R. 63A/1515 was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver and the truck collided with the bicycle of Asha Ram (deceased) who suffered injuries and died in the Hospital?

¶24

1. Whether the truck bearing Registration H.R. 63A/1515 was being driven with the valid driving license?

¶25

1. Whether the truck bearing Registration H.R. 63A/1515 was being driven without valid papers.

¶26

1. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled and from whom?

¶27

After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at `36,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of nine, after deducting 1/3^rd of his income which the deceased would have spent on himself.

¶28

The assessment and financial loss to the claimants made by the Tribunal, appears to be just and proper and perfectly inconsonance with the principle of law laid down in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. & others 2009 (2) T.A.C. page 677 (SC). The deceased was a mason and he was aged 58 years. Though his alleged employer Bijendra Singh (PW3) has stated that the deceased was being paid ` 10,000/- per month, but there

¶29

¶30

was no documentary proof of the payment of such salary. The job of the mason is not a regular in nature.

¶31

In the above circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased at ` 36,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, which was 58 years, the multiplier of nine is also correct in the case. The dependency of the claimants has also been rightly assessed at 2/3^rd .

¶32

For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

¶34

10.05.2013 JM

Smt. Shanti and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Khanna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Khanna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijya Devi and Others Vs Balwant Singh and Another

Jaleel Lohar and Ors. Vs Naushad Ahmad

Smt. Mamta Vs Ram Naresh Balmiki

Syeeda Begum Vs Basant Kumar and Others

Kanwar Dalinderjit Singh Vs Narayan Pal

Smt. Pushpa Vs Pushkar Singh