Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA, J
PANO DEVI WIFE OF LATE SH. CHAMAN LAL, KUMARI PREETI D/O LATE SH. CHAMAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
SH. GAUTAM NATH, SH. LEELA PRAKASH, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 266 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.S. Rangra
For the Respondents: I.N. Mehta, Sunil Kumar
The appellate court can enhance compensation for motor vehicle accident claims based on established income and future prospects, affirming established principles for calculating dependency and conventional damages.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Compensation for death in motor accident - Tribunal awarded Rs.2,36,000/- to claimants, which was challenged for enhancement - Claims of deceased's income disputed; the Court assessed and modified the compensation based on established income of Rs.6,000/- per month with additional future prospects - Added funeral expenses and loss of consortium based on Supreme Court's principles as per Pranay Sethi case. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 20, 24)
(B) Appeal - Court's power to enhance compensation - Appellate Courts can enhance compensation even if no cross-objections exist, to ensure justice; assessment must follow laid down principles. (Paras 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
Claimants sought compensation post-death of Chaman Lal in a vehicular accident, claiming income of Rs.15.00 Lakh for loss of dependency and additional damages under various conventional heads. Respondents contested these claims attributing negligence to the deceased while challenging the income claims.
Findings of Court:
The Court modified compensation to Rs.625,200/- accounting for loss of dependency and enhanced amount for other heads, basing decisions on prevailing laws and documented precedents.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the income of the deceased, the method of calculating future prospects, necessity for enhanced compensation for conventional heads, and the Court's authority to amend findings from the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court defined income for compensatory purposes, applying proper deductions for dependency, affirmed that unchallenged decisions on liability could be adjusted by appellate review, and recognized that specified legal principles must govern compensation.
Result: Appeal partly allowed, award modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances surrounding the motor accident leading to the claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for enhancing compensation based on deceased's income. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis on income evaluation and appropriate multipliers. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning for the final compensation awarded. (Para 18) |
| 5. conclusion modifying the award based on established principles. (Para 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. appellate courts' authority to enhance awards. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT
By way of instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), challenge has been laid to Award dated 19.1.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in MACT No. 38 of 2007, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition, having been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’), held respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that a claim petition under S.166 of the Act, came to be instituted at the behest of the claimants, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 Lakh, on account of death of Chaman Lal in a motor-vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-1710 on 10.10.2006. As per claimants, on 10.10.2006, deceased was coming from Village Bagla to Mandi on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-29-1-0586. He stopped his motorcycle at Chakkar on the left hand side of the road. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-1710 came form Mandi, which was being driven by respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner and hit firstly the motorcycle and thereafter the deceased, as a consequence of which, deceased suffered injuries and died on the spot. Claimants, being dependent upon the deceased, file claim petition, as referred to above, stating therein that the deceased was working as a contractor and his monthly income was more than Rs.50,000/- per month. Claimants also claimed that that the motorcycle was totally damaged in the accident and sine they have been left with no source of income, they be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 Lakh.
3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who though admitted the factum of accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-1710 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-29A-0586, but asserted that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the tipper. Respondent No.2 specifically denied that the vehicle was stopped at Chakkar on left side of the road and Tipper had hit the stationery motorcycle.
4. Respondent No.3 i.e. insurance company, opposed the claim on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues for determination on 16.5.2008:
1. Whether the deceased Chaman Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper No. HP-58-1710 by respondent Leela Prakash as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR.
4. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. At the time of accident? OPR-3
5. Relief”
6. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by respective parties, held respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,
