Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CONC/24/2016 of NASREEN MEHMOOD AND ORS. Vs SHERAZ HUSSAIN AND ORS. on 31 December 2019
21 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CONC No. 24/2016 Nasreen Mehmood and others …Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate v/s Sheraz Hussain and others …Respondent (s) Through :-Mr. Sanjay K. Dhar, Advocate HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE ORDER
Sr. No. 21
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
CONC No. 24/2016
…Appellant(s)
Nasreen Mehmood and others
Through :- Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate
v/s
Sheraz Hussain and others …Respondent (s)
Through :-Mr. Sanjay K. Dhar, Advocate
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
Coram:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
ORDER
CONC No. 24/2016
For the reasons stated in the application, as also taking into consideration the benevolent and beneficial object of the legislation, i.e. Motor Vehicle Act, the delay in filing the appeal for enhancement of compensation is condoned.
Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Registry is directed to diarize the appeal .
____/2019
1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) are in appeal against the award dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in File No. Claim No./111/C titled Sm. Nasreen Mehmood and others Vs. Sheraz Hussain and others, whereby the claimants have been held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 26,60,610/- along with interest @ 7.5 %. The claimant No. 1 is wife, whereas, claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are minor children of the deceased-Maqbool Hussain, who lost his life in a vehicular accident, which took place on 12.04.2012 at Sarla in Rajouri District due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 2-driver.
Having lost their breadwinner, the claimants filed a petition for compensation before the Tribunal. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3-the Insurer as also the driver of the vehicle. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:-
2. Whether deceased Maqbool Hussain lost his life on account of the injuries sustained by him in the Road Traffic accident on 12.04.2012 caused at Fatehpur Danna due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. JK11-9888 by respondent No. 1? …OPP
3. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?
…OPP
4. Whether the vehicle was being driven without an effective driving licence and in violation in terms of Insurance Policy, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner?
5. Relief…
2. The Insurer, which has been held liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimants has accepted the judgment. However, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that while calculating the compensation, the Tribunal has ignored the mandate of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr; 2009 (3) SC 487 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others;2017 (16) SCC 680 and has, thus, awarded the compensation, which is on the lesser side.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified so as to bring it in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments.
4. Admittedly, the deceased, at the time of accident was aged 41 and, therefore, as per the table laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 14 was applicable. The Tribunal, however, has erroneously applied the multiplier of 10. Similarly, the amount payable under the heads „Loss of Consortium‟, „Funeral Expenses‟ and „Loss of Estate‟ are also required to be modified in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
5. Accordingly, the amount to which the claimants would be entitled to shall be as under:- Loss of Dependency :- Rs. 36,82,854/- (Rs.2,63,061/-×14)
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Parental Consortium To wife :- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Parental Consortium To minor children @ Rs. 40,000/- each :- Rs. 1,60,000/- Total :- Rs. 38,87,854/-
6. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Keeping in view the fact that this appeal was delayed by 238 days, no interest on the amount shall be payable for the aforesaid period. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
7. Award amount, if any, deposited in the Registry, shall be released in favour of the claimants as per the terms of the award and subject to proper identification and verification of the parties
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge
Jammu 31.12.2019
Tarun
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No .