The Apex court in Savita vs. Bindar Singh & others, MANU/SC/0225/2014 : 2014 AIR SCW 2053, has held that at the time of fixing compensation, courts should not succumb to niceties or technicalities of law. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 6 of the said decision hereunder:
"6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (Supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation."
12. A reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, MANU/SC/0662/1996 : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2627, in which, in paragraph 12, it was observed that the courts, while deciding claim petitions, must keep in mind that the right of the claimants is not defeated on technical grounds. Relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder:
"12......................... While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of the liability in view of subsection (1) of Section 96 of the Act. It need not be pointed out that the whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure and result of the execution of the decree is well known."13. This Court also, in the recent past, in series of judgments, has followed the similar principle and held that granting of compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and is to be taken to its logical end without succumbing to the niceties of law, hyper-technicalities and procedural wrangles and tangles.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.34 of 2007
Decided on: August 29, 2014.
Union of India and another.
...Appellants
VERSUS
Sonam Chomo and others.
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir,
Citation: 2015(2)ALLMR(JOURNAL)94
This appeal is directed against the award, dated
6.11.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh, in Claim Petition No.36 of 2005, titled as
Smt. Sonam Chomo and others vs. Union of India and
others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,52,600/- ,
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of petition till its deposit was awarded in favour of the
claimants (respondents No.1 to 3, herein) and against the
appellants, (for short, ‘the impugned award’).
Brief Facts
2.
The claimants, being the victims of vehicular
accident, filed the claim petition for grant of compensation
to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in
the claim petition, on the ground that deceased, namely
Tara Chand was traveling in Maruti Van No.HP-42-0206 from
Kullu to keylong. The Van was hit at Gulaba Mod by a
Tipper bearing registration No.98-E-66249, belonging to the
appellants herein, being driven by respondent No.3, namely
Satinder Pal Singh rashly and negligently, while coming from
Marhi to Naggar, as a result of which, the Maruti Van rolled
down about 150-200 feet from the road. Tara Chand, Tashi
and Nawang Phunchog suffered injuries in the said
accident and lateron, Tara Chand succumbed to the
same. FIR No.106/2004,, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A
of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station,
Manali.
3.
It is averred in the claim petition that the
deceased Tara Chand was 31 years of age at the time of
accident and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month from
agriculture work, shop and STD booth.
It was further
pleaded by the claimants that the deceased graduated
from Punjab University, Chandigarh.
4.
The respondents (appellants herein) and the
driver contested the claim petition by filing reply.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed by the Tribunal:
“1. Whether the deceased Tara Chand died due to rash
and negligent driving of GREF Tipper No.98E-66249 by
respondent No.3? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of
compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from
whom? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties? OPR.
4. Relief.”
Parties have led their evidence. The claimants
6.
have examined PW.1 Dr. Balbir Rawat, PW.2 HC Mohar
Singh, PW.3 Smt. Sonam Chomo (claimant) and PW.4
They also
Nawang Punchong, driver of the Maruti Van.
placed on record copies of post mortem report, FIR, birth
certificate, school leaving certificate, school certificate,
B.A. degree, STD licence, death certificate and parivar
register as Exts.PW.1/A, PW.2/A, PW.3/A
respectively.
The respondents have also
to PW.3/G,
examined,
Satinder Pal Singh, driver of the offending Tipper and B.C.
Patel as RW.1 and RW.2, respectively. Documents i.e. copies
of judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate in the
criminal case, mechanical report and statement, were also
proved on record by the appellants herein as Exts.RW.1/A,
RW.2/A and RW.2/B, respectively.
7.
The Tribunal after examining the evidence on the
file came to the conclusion that the claimants have proved
that
the
driver,
namely
Satinder
Pal
Singh
had
caused the accident by hitting the
driven the offending Tipper rashly and negligently and
Maruti Van, which
rolled down the road, resulting into the death of Tara
Chand, who was an occupant in the said Maruti Van.
8.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that
the driver of the offending Tipper was acquitted of the
criminal case registered against him, by the Trial Magistrate.
Thus, it was submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held
that the driver had driven the offending Tipper rashly and
negligently.
9.
The argument, though attractive, is devoid of
any force for the reason that in order to prove guilt against
an accused in a criminal case, the prosecution has to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In a claim
petition, the claimants have to prove their case summarily
and it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the driver of
the offending vehicle has earned acquittal order. My this
view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in case
titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and
others etc., reported in AIR 1980, SC 1354.
10.
It is also beaten law of the land that the
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle
has
to
be
decided
on
the
hallmark
of
preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further also, the claimants
claiming compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act is not to be seen as an adversial litigation, but
is to be determined while keeping in view the aim and
object of granting compensation. My this view is fortified by
the judgment of the Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and
others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, (2013) 10 SCC
11.
646.
The Apex court in Savita vs. Bindar Singh & others,
2014 AIR SCW 2053, has held that at the time of fixing
compensation, courts should not succumb to niceties or
technicalities of law. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 6 of
the said decision hereunder:
“6. After considering the decisions of this Court in
Santosh Devi (Supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the
duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At
the time of fixing such compensation, the court
should
not
succumb
to
the
niceties
or
technicalities to grant just compensation in
favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court
to equate, as far as possible, the misery on
account of the accident with the compensation
so that the injured or the dependants should not
face
the
vagaries
of
life
on
account
of
discontinuance of the income earned by the
victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of
the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and
reasonable compensation judging the situation
prevailing at that point of time with reference to
the settled principles on assessment of damages.
In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the
claim made by the claimant in the application
for compensation with the prime object to assess
the award based on the principle that the award
should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable
compensation.”
12.
A reference can also be made to the decision of
the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P.Sesh Reddy and
others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2627, in which, in
paragraph 12, it was observed that the courts, while
deciding claim petitions, must keep in mind that the right of
the claimants is not defeated on technical grounds.
Relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the said decision is
reproduced hereunder:
“12.
........................ While interpreting the contract of
insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious
of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and
legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not
defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on
the materials on record that it was the insured who had
wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a
person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the
accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a
judgment debtor in respect of the liability in view of sub-
section (1) of Section 96 of the Act. It need not be
pointed out that the whole concept of getting the
vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide
easy
mode
of
getting
compensation
an
by
the
claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue
their claim against the owner from one forum to the other
and ultimately to execute the order of the Accident
Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of
properties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure
13.
and result of the execution of the decree is well known.”
This Court also, in the recent past, in series of
judgments, has followed the similar principle and held that
granting of compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings
of the victims and is to be taken to its logical end without
succumbing to the niceties of law, hyper-technicalities and
procedural wrangles and tangles.
14.
It is clear from the above discussion that the
Tribunal has rightly recorded findings under Issue No.1,
which are liable to be upheld.
15.
Before Issue No.2 is taken up, I deem it proper to
deal with Issue No.3.
The onus to prove this issue was on
the appellants herein. However, there is nothing on the
record to show that the claim petition is hit by non-joinder
the Tribunal under Issue No.3, are upheld.
The Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the
16.
Issue No.2.
of necessary parties. Accordingly, the findings recorded by
parties and the evidence, assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and, after deducting
1/3rd towards his personal expenses, held that the claimants
have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2800/-
per month, which is on the lower side and too meager.
However, since the claimants have not questioned the
adequacy of compensation, therefore, I reluctantly uphold
the same. The Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier
‘16’.
17.
Having said so, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is adequate and requires no interference.
18.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the
impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
The compensation amount be released in favour of the
claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award.
29th August, 2014.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir),
Chief Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment