HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

MA No. 127/2015

in

MA No. 128/2015

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.

Ltd.

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate

q

vs

Somi Singh and others

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Dinkar Gupta, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated

07.01.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (for

short, 8Tribunal9), whereby the learned Tribunal while disposing of the

two claim petitions arising out of the same accident has awarded a sum

of Rs. 5,65,000/- along with interest @ 6% in favour of the legal

heir/dependent of the deceased-Ritu Kour and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-

along with interest @6% in favour of the legal heir of the deceased-

Honey Singh.

2.

The facts emanating from the record reveal that on 27.08.2012, the

deceased-Ritu Kour and her minor son deceased-Honey Singh were

riding on a motorcycle that was being driven by the claimant from

Udhampur towards Jammu. The motorcycle was hit by a Truck bearing

Registration No. JK01F-2891 that was being driven rashly and

negligently by its driver-respondent No. 3, which resulted into an

accident, as a consequence of which, both Ritu Kour and her son-Honey

Singh died.

Sr. No. 32

2 MA No. 127/2015

c/w

MA No. 128/2015

3.

Learned Tribunal after holding an enquiry decided the claim petitions

filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and came to the conclusion that

the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of

respondent No. 3. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.

2 herein. It was also found that the vehicle at the relevant point of time

was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The learned

Tribunal has also found that there was violation of terms and conditions

of the policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a

valid and effective driving licence. So far as quantum of compensation

is concerned, learned Tribunal held that deceased-Ritu Kour was a

housewife and her notional income per month was taken as Rs. 3,500/-

and Rs. 1000/- was added to the income on account of earnings from

tuitions. Thus, total income of the deceased-Ritu Kour was taken as Rs.

4,500/- per month. On the basis of this, the compensation for an amount

of Rs. 5,65,000/- was assessed by the Tribunal and an award in favour

of the claimant was passed accordingly.

4.

In the case of deceased-Honey Singh, who was only eight months old

at the time of his death, his notional income was taken as Rs. 15,000/-

per annum and on this basis, the compensation in favour of the claimant

was assessed as Rs. 3,00,000/-.

5.

The appellant-Insurance Company has filed two separate appeals,

particulars whereof are given hereinbefore, and challenged the common

award passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the quantum of

compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on a higher side.

3 MA No. 127/2015

c/w

MA No. 128/2015

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Vishnu

Gupta has contended that learned Tribunal has fallen into a grave error

in taking the notional income of deceased-Ritu Kour as Rs. 3500/- per

month with addition of Rs. 1000/- on account of her earnin