Rajbala Devi And Others v. Manoj And Others

     




 

  

 



! "!   #

$ 



!!!

## $%  



!!!

   & # !





 #

Present:

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3. * * * 

 #

'

!

# Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), claimants - appellants have preferred the present appeal. Vide the impugned award, the claim petition preferred by the claimants2appellants under Section 1632A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed on the ground that claimants have failed to prove neglience on the part of respondent no.1.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly accepted that in a case under Section 1632A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 finding of neglience is not required as under Section 1632A of Motor Vehicles Act is governed by 'no fault liability'. Admittedly, present claim petition was preferred by the claimants2appellants under Section 1632A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition

 preferred by the claimants on the ground that claimants have failed to prove rash and neglient driving of respondent no.1. The claim petition was based upon 'no fault liability'. Therefore, proving neglience was not required. Accordingly, the finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.1 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

3.

It is held that deceased2Rajbir died in motor accident dated 14.06.2015, while pillion riding along with Rambir on motorcycle bearing No. HR260B23435. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the claimants2appellants. No finding has been given by learned Tribunal on issue nos. 2 and 3.

4.

However, in the present case, as per pleadings of the claimants, deceased was earning Rs.3,300/2 p.m. This again has gone unrebutted. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased, therefore, would be Rs.39,600/2. As per Second Schedule (




 

 

    ), deduction to the extent of 1/3rd needs to be applied. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and therefore, multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,75,200/2 (2,200/2 x 12 x 18) as per the Second Schedule. The claimants2appellants are further entitled to funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/2, loss of estate to the extent of Rs. 2,500/2 as per the Second Schedule.

5.

Accordingly, claimants2appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,79,700/2 as under:2 Income of deceased Rs.3,300/2 p.m.

Rs.3,300/2 p.m. x 12 2 Rs.39,600/2

( 1/3 rd Deduction on account of personal expenses of deceased Rs.2,200/2 (Rs.3,300/2 2 Rs.1,100) Selection of multiplier Loss of dependency Rs.2,200/2 x 18 x 12 Rs. 4,75,200/2 Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500/2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/2 )*+, -)./012+*3)1 +4+5606 *70 +//0+,

2!

'"' % 6.

Let the same be paid by respondent No.32Insurance Company to the claimants2appellants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation as respondent No.3 has not pressed issue No.3 in absence of any evidence in this regard. 7.

Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ! "! 



 # Janki

  Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No