IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 530 of 2003 Reserved on : 24th November, 2008 Date of Decision: 24th February, 2009 Smt. Jamna Devi and others Appellants Versus Ajay Sharma and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Virender Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. The claimants being the wife and children of the deceased Shri Nek Ram have assailed the award dated 12th July, 2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, in MAC Petition No.38 of 1999, titled as Smt. Jamna Devi and others vs. Ajay Sharma and another, seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On 22.1.1999 Shri Nek Ram was hit by vehicle No.HP-50- 0237 near old Bus Stand at Solan. The said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its owner Shri Ajay Sharma. Due to the accident Shri Nek Ram received severe injuries and received medical aid at Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, from where he was Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 referred to Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh, but, however, died on 4th February, 1999. The claimants as legal heirs and dependants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on the ground that the deceased was employed on regular basis as Beldar with the Irrigation and Public Health Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh at Solan. The petition was opposed by the driver cum owner on the ground that the deceased did not die due to the injuries received in the accident, occurrence of which, however, was admitted. The vehicle being insured, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed a reply pleading contravention of the material terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus not liable to indemnify the insurer. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Shri Nek Ram in a Motor Vehicle accident as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence nor was competent to hold such licence as alleged? OPR-2 3. Whether the three wheeler was not duly registered and was being driven in contravention of the insurance policy? OPR-2 4. If issue No.1 is proved, then to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPR-2 3 While deciding Issue No.1, based on the statement of Smt. Jamuna Devi (PW-2) and Dr.M.K.Tiwari (PW-5), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Shri Ajay Sharma, who was driving the vehicle in question was rash and negligent and it was due to his actions that the deceased received injuries, which resulted into his death. The findings on the said issue are not under challenge. With regard to Issues No.2 and 3, the Tribunal found that the driver of the vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving licence and as such competent to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the plea of the Insurer that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy was unfounded. Issues No.2 and 3 were decided accordingly. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal found that the claimants were dependants upon the deceased, who was having proven income of rs.3665/- per month and as such for determining the loss of dependency the salary was taken to be Rs.1500/- per month and considering the age of deceased to be 54 years, by applying a multiplier of ‘10’ compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- was determined towards the head of loss of dependency. In addition to this, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.3000/- as litigation costs. Thus in all a sum of Rs.2,53,000/- was awarded to the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 4 The scope of present appeal is narrow as neither the owner nor the insurer has assailed any of the findings of the Tribunal. The claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants restricted his claim for enhancement on the ground that entire salary of Rs.3665/- ought to have been accounted for determining the loss of dependency. Salary certificate (Ext.PW-4/A) stands proved by Smt. Kanta Thakur (PW-4). The deceased was serving as Beldar on regular basis with Irrigation and Public Health Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. There is no doubt about monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs.3665/-. The age of the deceased 54 years is also not in dispute. The deceased was married and had two children. There is no doubt that he would have been contributing towards the upbringing of his family, but, however, it cannot be said that he was not spending any amount on himself. Therefore, in my view instead of Rs.1500/- as accounted for by the Tribunal, the salary for the purpose of determination of loss of dependency can safely be determined to be as Rs.2444/- or say Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.3665 x 1/3 = Rs.1221/-; Rs.3665 – Rs.1221/-. Considering that the deceased was a government employee and that the average expectancy of age is somewhere in between 70 and 75 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘10’. There is nothing wrong with the same. Thus for the purpose of loss of dependency the total compensation payable to the claimant would work out to be Rs.3,00,000/- [Rs.2500 x 12 x 10]. 5 In addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- as enhanced amount of compensation towards loss of dependency instead of Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only future interest. I see no reason as to why interest, pendente lite, be also not awarded to the claimants. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition. Ordered accordingly. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned award is modified. February 24, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.