JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, counsel for the respondent.
2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.6.2002, passed by-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 229 of 1997, Kamlesh Kumar v. G.B. Pant University, whereby a sum of Rs. 30.000 has been awarded to the claimant towards compensation.
3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent being Motor Accident Claim Case No. 229 of 1997, Kamlesh Kumar v. C.B. Pant University, claiming a sum of Rs. 1.50,000 towards compensation.
4. According to the claimant, on 24.3.1997. he was going to his house at Kakpheri, Pant Nagar, Tehsil Kichha from Nagla as a pillion rider on scooter of his friend Rajeev Verma, as soon as they reached near Stadium, all of a sudden, a Jeep No. U.T.F. 104, which was coming from the back side and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the claimant. In this accident, the claimant received grievous injuries. Claimant and his friend were taken to Pant Nagar Hospital for first aid, but due to serious condition of the claimant, he was sent to Om Hospital, Rudrapur. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital upto 20 days as his ribs and legs had broken. He has stated that he spent a sum of Rs 35,000 on his treatment. At the time of accident, the claimant was 28 years of age and was a salesman in the canteen of the hostel of the University.
5. Appellant has contested the claim by filing a written statement stating therein that University is the registered owner of the Vehicle No. U.T.F. 104. It has also been stated that no accident took place by the said vehicle because the said vehicle was parked in the garage on 24.3.1997 and was never driven on the road. Thus, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues:
¼1½ D;k fnukad 24-3-1997 dks fnu esa yxHkx 11 cts uxyk jksM+ ij LVsfM;e ds ikl thi la0 ;w0Vh0,Q&104 ls dksbZ okgu nq?kZVuk gqbZ tSlk fd vfHkdfFkr gS \
¼2½ D;k mi;qZDr nq?kZVuk esa fifV’kuj deys’k dqekj dks pksVs vk;h \
¼3½ D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu iw.kZr;k mrkoysiu ls pyk;k tk jgk Fkk \
¼4½ fiVh’kuj fdl] ;fn fdlh] izfrdj dh /kujkf’k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
7. On behalf of the claimant, claimant himself and one Rajeev Kumar were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively. Towards the documentary evidence, claimant has filed twenty eight papers.
8. On behalf of the appellant, one Vijendra Singh has been examined as D.W. 1. Towards the documentary evidence, the appellant has filed per list 27Ga three papers and per list 56Ga one paper.
9. While deciding the issues Nos. 1 to 3 as to whether on 24.3.1997 at about 11 a.m. near Stadium Nagla Road, an accident took place by Jeep No. U.T.F. 104 as has been mentioned, further as to whether in the said accident, Kamlesh Kumar received injuries, and further as to whether at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently. Claims Tribunal has placed reliance on the check of the F.I.R. Paper No. 12Ga/2 and charge-sheet Paper No. 12Ga/3, where shows that the accident took place by Jeep No. U.T.F. 104 on 24.3.1997 and the report was lodged at 4 p.m. and thereafter, charge-sheet was issued. Further, reliance has been placed on the copy of the order passed in Crime No. 229 of 1997, by which Gajendra Singh has been convicted under Section 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, but he has been given benefit of doubt. Further, reliance has been placed on the statement of P.W. 1, who has narrated the entire story and stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep No. U.T.F. 104. P.W. 2, who was an ocular witness, has also supported the story of the claimant. D.W. 1 has stated in his statement that the Jeep No. U.T.F. 104 is always parked on the parking place alongwith other vehicles in the University and the University has its own allotment register of the vehicle. When it goes out of that place, it is entered in the Register. D.W. 1 has stated that it was Holi on 24.3.1997, therefore, no allotment was done on that date. Gate Register for the period from 22.3.1997 to 25.3.1997 has also been produced. It has been stated that on the date of accident neither any driver came nor any vehicle was driven out. He has admitted that Log book remains in the possession of the driver and he fills it. This fact has been opposed by the respondent. Taking into consideration the aforesaid documents as well as statements, Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding to the following effect:
tgka rd dfFkr thi ;w0Vh0,Q0 104 ds pkyd }kjk nq?kZVuk dkfjr fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS vkSj bl lUnHkZ esa vfHk;kstu pyk;s tkus dk lEcU/k gS rks ;g ckr i=koyh ij miyC/k fu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dkxt la0 57 x ls lkfcr gS fd bl lUnHkZ esa ljdkj }kjk /kkjk 279] 338] 427] Hkk0n0la0 ds vUrxZr Fkkuk :nziqj ds vkjksi i= ij U;k;ky; esa thi la[;k ;w0Vh0,Q0 104 ds lUnHkZ esa vfHk;kstu pyk;k x;k vkSj vfHk;qDr dks lUnsg dk ykHk nsrs gq, nks”keqDr fd;k x;k A mDr fu.kZ; dk voyksdu djus ls Li”V gS fd U;k;ky; ds le{k nks xokgkas dks ijhf{kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftles ih0 MCyw0 1 jes’k pUnz Fkk] tcfd ih0 MCY;w0 2 nwljk pqVSy jktho oekZ Fkk A D;k okLro esa latho oekZ dk lk{; nkafM+d U;k;ky; ds le{k dyec) fd;k x;k vkSj mlds }kjk ,slk c;ku fn;k x;k] tSlk fd fu.kZ; esa izdV fd;k x;k gS] ;g ckr lkfcr ugha gS] D;ksfd mDr jktho dqekj iq= jes’k pUnz crkSjh ih0 MCY;w0 2 bl dsl esa xokgh esa is’k gq, gS vkSj mlus ;kfpdk ds rF;ks dks iwjh rjg leFkZu nsrs gq, dgk gS fd 24-3-1997 dks ;w0Vh0,Q0 104 thi us VDdj ekjh Fkh A bl xokg dks ,slk dksbZ lq>ko ugh fn;k x;k gS fd nkafM+d U;k;ky; ds le{k mldk c;ku lk{; esa dyec) fd;k x;k gks vkSj mlus foijhr dFku fd;k gks A fof/k&vuqlkj bl xokg dks mlds iwoZ c;kuksa ds lUnHkZ esa pqukSrh nh tkuh pkfg, Fkh tks foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ugh nh x;h gS A vr% ;g ckr lkfcr ugh gS fd okLro es nkafM+d U;k;ky; ds le{k jktho dqekj iq= jes’k pUnz gh lk{; esa is’k gq, vkSj mlus vfHk;kstu i{k dks leFkZu ugh fn;k A ;fn jktho dqekj }kjk nks fHkUu&fHkUu frfFk;ks ij gh ?kVuk ds laUnHkZ esa vkil esa fojks/kh c;ku fn;s x;s gS rks mDr xokg dks xyr c;kuh ds fy, ijhf{kr ,oa nafM+r fd;k tk ldrk Fkk A blds fy, u rks jktho dqekj iq= jes’k pUnz dk dfFkr c;ku gh bl U;k;y; esa is’k fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh bl lUnHkZ esa mls pqukSrh nh x;h gS A bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ih0 MCY;w0 2 ds dFkuksa ij fo’okl u djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugh gS A
13- tgka rd ih0 MCY;w0 1 ds dFku dk lEcU/k gS] rks mlus Loa; Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ogh mDr okgu dk bUpktZ Fkk vkSj tks jftLVj is’k fd;s x;s gS] os mldh ns[k js[k esa iksf”kr fd;s x;s gS A ykWx cqd ds lUnHkZ esa Mh0 MCY;w0 1 us Loa; ekuk gS fd bl ij MªkbZoj ds gkFk ls ,UVªh dh tkrh gS] ysfdu bl thi ds lEcU/k esa mlds }kjk bUnzkt fd;k x;k gS A bl bUnzkt ds lEcU/k eas lcls mfpr lk{; dfFkr okgu dk MªkbZoj gks ldrk Fkk] ysfdu mls mls lk{; esa ijhf{kr ugh djk;k x;k gS A blds vfrfjDr tks ifjp;kZ jftLVj ,oa ykWx cqd dh udysa nkf[ky dh x;h gS A muesa dkxt la0 48 x ykWx cqd dh udy gS ftles 22] 23 ,oa 25-3-1997 ds bUnzkt fn[kk;s x;s gS A 24-3-1997 ds fy, dksbZ fVIi.kh vafdr ugh dh x;h gS A dkxt la0 49 x xsV jftLVj gS] tcfd dkxt la0 50x nSfud vykVesUV jftLVj gS vkSj bles 22-3-1997 ds bUnzkt fn[kk;s x;s gS] ysfdu 23-3-1997 dk dksbZ bUnzkt vafdr ugh gS] tcfd 24-3-1997 dks gkafl;a esa j[kdj bUnzkt fn[kk;k x;k gS A 22-3-1997 dks Hkh jfookj dk fnu n’kkZ;k x;k gS vkSj ml fnu okgu ckgj fudkyk x;k gS tcfd jfookj dks fo’ofo|ky; dk vodk’k gksuk pkfg, Fkk A bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nkf[ky jftLVjksa ij fo’okl fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gS] D;ksfd ftl O;fDr ds fo:) ;g vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS fd mlus nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh] ogh fookfnr okgu dk bUpktZ jgk gS vkSj lEcfU/kr jftLVj mls }kjk gh iksf”kr fd;k tk jgk gS A bu ifjfLFkfr;ks esa Mh0 MCY;w0 1 ds dFkuksa ij fo’okl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugh gS A
14- mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu”d”kZ ij igqWaprk gwWa fd fnukad 24-3-1997 dks 11 cts fnu uxyk jksM+ ij LVsfM+;e ds ikl okgu la[;k ;w0Vh0,Q0 104 thi }kjk gh nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh x;h] ftles ;kph deys’k dqekj dks pksVs vk;h rFkk mDr okgu mis{kkiw.kZ ,oa mrkoysiu ls pyk;k x;k A rnuqlkj okn fcUnq la[;k &1 yxk;r 3 ;kph ds i{k esa foi{kh ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;s tkrs gS A
10. Thus, the Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the document filed by both the parties has recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No. U.T.F. 104, in which Kamlesh Kumar received injuries. I do not find any infirmity or illegality with the aforesaid finding and the same deserves to be confirmed.
11. While deciding the issue No. 4 with regard to quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal has relied upon medical bills amounting to Rs. 18,957 and has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,000 under this head. Further since the claimant remained in the hospital for a period of twenty days and could not do his work upto three months, Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 under this head. Further a sum of Rs. 3,000 has been awarded for conveyance and special diet. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 30,000 to the claimant towards compensation alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum.
12. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid finding and the same deserves to be confirmed.
Counset for the appellant has submitted that the interest is on the higher side.
13. In Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C. v. Sripriya and Ors. 2007 (67) ALR 813 (SC), the Apex Court has observed as under:
10. In regard to choice of the multiplicand the Halsbury’s Laws of England in Vol. 34, para 98 states the principle thus:
98. Assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1976.-The Courts have evolved a method for calculating the amount of pecuniary benefit that dependents could reasonably expect to have received from the deceased in the future. First the annual value to the dependants of those benefits (the multiplicand) is assessed. In the ordinary case of the death of a wage-earner that figure is arrived at by deducting from the wages the estimated amount of his own personal and living expenses.
The assessment is split into two parts. The first part comprises damages for the period between death and trial. The multiplicand is multiplied by the number of years which have elapsed between those two dates. Interest at one-half the short-term investment rate is also awarded on that multiplicand. The second part is damages for the period from the trial onwards. For that period, the number of years which have based on the number of years that the expectancy would probably have lasted; central to that calculation is the probable length of the deceased’s working life at the date of death.
15. Considering the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier would be 12. The income fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction for personal expenses do not warrant any interference. Worked out on that basis, the entitlement of the loss of income is Rs. 5,76,000. The other expenses awarded unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the claimant is fixed at Rs. 6,00,000. It would be appropriate to fix the rate of interest at 7.5% instead of 9% as done by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court.
14. In view of the above, the appellant will be liable to pay simple interest @ 7.5% per annum in place of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition, in case the same has not already been paid. Rest of the award is confirmed. Any amount, if any, deposited in the Court shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal concerned.
15. Subject to modification in the rate of interest, A.O. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
