Amarjeet Kaur vs Pritam Singh

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.(Oral)—Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 27th August, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 23 of 2007, titled as Amarjit Kaur and others v. Shriman Sant Baba Joginder Singh (deceased being the registered owner of vehicle HP20A2124) thruogh his father Shri Pritam Singh and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants came to be dismissed (for short "the impugned award").

The unfortunate claimants have been dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar by all concerned. Less said is better.

It is apt to record herein that the appellants-claimants filed a claim petition, being MAC No. 52 of 2002, before the Tribunal on 8th November, 2002, which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh in terms of order, dated 25th August, 2007, which is evident from the certified copy of the order (supra) produced by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants before this Court, which has been made part of the appeal.

After withdrawal of the said claim petition, the appellants-claimants have filed fresh claim petition on 26th September, 2007, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6.40 lacs, as per the breakups given in the claim petition.

The ownersinsured of the offending vehicle have filed reply and admitted all the paras of the claim petition. Thus, the factum that the deceased was driver of the offending vehicle and had driven the same at the time of the accident is admitted. Thus, there is no need to prove the said fact.

The appellants-claimants had an option either to claim compensation under the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "EC Act") or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act"). The appellants-claimants, perhaps, being under the impression that they will get compensation at higher rate while invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under MV Act, filed the claim petition, but, unfortunately, that has gone against them.

It is admitted that the accident has taken place, deceased-Jit Singh was driver of the offending vehicle and was earning at least Rs. 3,000/- per month.

The insurer has admitted in the reply that the offending vehicle was insured. Even, learned counsel for the insurer has also not denied the factum of insurance, however, has stated that the deceased was not the driver.

The insurer has not led any evidence before the Tribunal and in view of the admission on the part of the ownersinsured, it cannot lie in the mouth of the insurer that the deceased was not the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, the insurer has to be saddled with liability.

The aim and object of awarding compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the claimants and the claim petitions cannot be dismissed on flimsy grounds.

The Apex Court and other High Courts have held that the Courts should not succumb to the procedural wrangles and tangles, hypertechnicalities and mystic maybes and that should not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition and to defeat the rights of the claimants.

The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354; Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2627; and Dulcina Fernandes and others v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 646, and by this Court in FAO No. 339 & 340 of 2008, titled as NIC v. Parwati & others; FAO No. 172 of 2006, titled as Oriental Insurance Company v. Shakuntla Devi & others; FAO No. 396 of 2012, titled as Asha & others v. Moti Ram & others; FAO No. 4248 of 2013, titled as Magni Devi & others v. Suneel Kumar & others, decided on 13.03.2015; FAO No. 17 of 2008, titled as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Brijbala & others, decided on 20.03.2015; and FAO No. 186 of 2008, titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Chand & others, decided on 01.05.2015.

Having said so, the impugned award merits to be set aside.

The question is � to which amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to?

While granting compensation under EC Act, the multiplier of 197.06 is to be applied in terms of Schedule IV appended with the EC Act. By taking 50% of the income of the deceased, it can be safely said that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1650 x 197.06 = Rs. 3, 25,149/- under EC Act.

Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of the accident. Thus, multiplier of ''17'' is applicable in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the MV Act.

At the worse, if we take the admission of the ownersinsured as gospel truth, the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is too meagre. After deducting one third towards his personal expenses, it is held that the claimants have lost source of income/dependency to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month and the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 17 = 4,08,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- each under the heads ''loss of consortium'', ''loss of estate'', ''loss of love and affection'' and ''funeral expenses''.

Having glance of the above discussions, I deem it proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,25,000/- in lumpsum with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its finalisation in favour of the claimants.

The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimants in equal shares after proper identification.

Viewed thus, the impugned award is set aside and the appeal is allowed, as indicated herein above.

Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal''s file.