IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No.333 of 2001. Reserved on: 27.06.2007. Decided on: August 02, 2007 New India Assurance Company Ltd. …..Appellant. VERSUS Smt.Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. For Respondents: Kuldip Singh, Judge The insurer of truck No.HP 15-2317 has filed this appeal against the award dated 29.8.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan in Claim Petition No.31-S/2 of 2000 awarding Rs.2,88,000/- compensation to the claimants / petitioners on account of death of their son Ravinder Kumar in truck accident bearing registration No.HP 15-2317. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the impugned award. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Ravinder Kumar, aged 19 ½ years, son of claimants / petitioners was travelling on 27.6.2000 as Cleaner / Conductor in truck No.HP 15-2317 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The truck met with an accident 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes …2… at about 9.30 P.M. on 27.6.2000 at place Bhatt-ki-Hatti on Shimla – Nalagarh road and rolled down about 200 feet down. Ravinder Kumar sustained grievous injuries in the accident and died on the spot. An F.I.R. No.45/2000 was registered at Police Station, Arki on 28.6.2000 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. The salary of the deceased was Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day daily expenses as Cleaner / Conductor of the truck. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver at the time of accident. The petitioners claimed Rs.5 lacs compensation along with 12% interest on account of death of their son Ravinder Kumar. 3. The respondent No.1, owner of the truck, filed reply and took preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction of tribunal to try the petition as the deceased was a workman. On merits, the employment of deceased with respondent as Cleaner on the truck was admitted. It has been denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. The cause of accident, as per respondent No.1, was collapse of retaining wall of the road at the site of the accident. The owner of the truck prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The respondent No.2, insurer of the truck, contested the petition by filing reply. The preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel and jurisdiction of the tribunal to try the petition have been pleaded. It has been submitted that the petitioners have already received Rs.2,26,380/- through Commissioner Workmens’ …3… Compensation, Arki District Solan on account of death of their son Ravinder Kumar which was deposited by the insurer of the truck. On merits, it has been submitted that total income of the deceased was Rs.2100/- per month inclusive salary, daily expenses etc. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.2 and admitted that an amount of Rs.2,26,380/- has been paid by respondent No.2 but that amount was deposited by respondent No.2 without adjudication of the claim of petitioners. The tribunal has held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck at the time of accident. The truck was insured with the insurer and awarded Rs.2,88,000/- in equal shares against the respondents with the direction that an amount of Rs.2,26,380/- had already been deposited by the insurer, therefore, balance amount of Rs.61,620/- was to be paid by Insurance Company within one month from the date of award failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The insurer is now in appeal in this Court against the impugned award. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the insurer that tribunal has assessed dependency of the petitioners on the higher side, multiplier of 16, applied by tribunal, is not proper keeping in view the ages of the deceased and the petitioners, excessive compensation has been awarded to the petitioners. He has submitted that all …4… defences are open to the insurer in view of the fact that application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of the insurer was allowed by the tribunal on 11.4.2001. 7. PW-1, Ram Chand, father of the deceased, has deposed that deceased used to get Rs.2000/- per month salary and Rs.50/- daily expenses. The deceased was ITI trained and was 19 ½ years of age at the time of his death. The deceased was his only son. The deceased used to pay him Rs.2000/- per month. Now, nobody is there to look after him and his wife. RW-1 Arvind Kumar Sharma, owner of the truck, has stated that he used to pay Rs.2100/- per month to deceased and Rs.50/- per day separately for expenses. RW-2, Ranvir Singh Thakur, Administrative Officer, New India Assurance Company, has stated that on receiving information from respondent No.1 regarding the death of Ravinder Kumar, an amount of Rs.2,26,380/- was deposited by insurer with the Commissioner Workmens’ Compensation, Arki. 8. The tribunal has taken dependency of petitioners Rs.1500/- per month even though no reasons have been given for taking dependency of petitioners at Rs.1500/- per month but still keeping in view the statement of RW-1 Arvind Kumar Sharma, employer of deceased and owner of truck, the deceased was being paid Rs.2100/- per month salary, the dependency of the petitioners at Rs.1500/- per month can be safely inferred from the material on record. The deceased was just 19 ½ years. The tribunal has applied …5… the multiplier of 16 in the present case. The insurer has admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.2,26,380/- which amount the insurer had deposited with Commissioner Workmens’ Compensation, Arki on account of death of Ravinder Kumar. Thus, the dispute is only of Rs.61,620/- over and above the amount of Rs.2,26,380/- otherwise accepted by the insurer. 9. Learned counsel for the insurer has submitted that deceased was young man of 19 ½ years. He was to be married very shortly, the claimants, being the parents, are not entitled to full compensation, at the most they are entitled to 1/3rd of the total compensation. It has come on record that deceased was the only son of the petitioners and now nobody has been left behind to look after the petitioners. The tribunal has considered only the dependency part of the petitioners while assessing the compensation. The tribunal has not awarded any amount to the petitioners towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, mental suffering and other non pecuniary losses. The awarding of 1/3rd of the total amount of compensation to the parents is not straight jacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, petitioners were totally dependant upon the deceased who was their only son. In these circumstances, keeping in view over-all factors into consideration, the compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable. It does not require any interference. …6… 10. The result of above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) August 02, 2007 Judge. (soni)