Himachal Pradesh High Court
FAO/473/2012 of HRTC Vs MANI RAM on 31 December 2013
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.473 of 2012 Judgment reserved on:23.12.2013 Date of Decision: 31.12.2013 Himachal Road Transport Corporation. …Appellant. Versus Sh.Mani Ram & others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
FAO No.473 of 2012
Judgment reserved on:23.12.2013 Date of Decision: 31.12.2013
Himachal Road Transport Corporation. …Appellant.
Versus
Sh.Mani Ram & others
…..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.Whether approved for reporting?[1]No. For the Appellant: Mr.Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Sanjay Karol, J.
The fact that Suti Devi (deceased), predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, on 09.03.2007 was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter, which met with an accident with vehicle (Bus) No.HP-39-3986 is not in dispute. That respondent Sunil Kumar was driving the bus owned by the appellant herein is also not in dispute. Suti Devi was given medical treatment and she died as a result of such accident is also not in dispute. Her legal heirs filed a petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation from the respondents. The claimants 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
were dependent upon the deceased is also not disputed before this Court.
2. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether at the time of accident, bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner or not.
3. To this effect, Tribunal has correctly appreciated the testimony of Purshottam Lal (PW.4), who happened to be a spot witness. According to him, bus was being driven at a high speed. Driver lost control and hit the scooter. Police during investigation also did not find the driver of the scooter to be negligent. Hence findings of the authority below are borne out from the record.
4. According to the claimants, Suti Devi was 45 years of age at the time of her death. However, Tribunal has taken her age to be between 50-55 years. There is no challenge to this finding. The authority below has accepted her income to be `3000/- per month. No fault can be found with such findings. Suti Devi was working as an agriculturist. Moreover in the year 2007, `3000/- per month were minimum wages, which even amanual labourer was earning. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3[rd] from the said amount and applying the multiplier of 11 awarded compensation in the following terms:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Compensation on account of: `2,64,000/- dependency. dependency.
2. Compensation for loss of :
`30,000/-
love and affection.
3. Compensation for funeral: Charges.
5. The amount stands awarded in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009)6 SCC 121. A sum of `2,64,000/-, as compensation cannot be said to be on the higher side.
6. As such, award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal, erroneous or perverse in any manner which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
7. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
December 31, 2013 (Purohit)
( Sanjay Karol), Judge