Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 CMAM no.11/2011
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … CMAM no. 110/2011
Pronounced on: 16 .05.2023
Syed Shakeela Tasleem and others ……...Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Razia Amin, Advocate vice Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate
Versus
Manzoor Ahmad Itoo and another ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. A. Malik, Advocate CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
Impugned in this appeal is Award dated 22nd July 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”) on a claim petition bearing no.06/2008 titled Syed Shakeela Tasleem and others v. Manzoor Ahmad Itoo and another, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. As is evident from perusal of the file, on Syed Mohammad Iqbal son Syed Ghulam Hassan resident of Nowgam Verinag has died in a road accident on 2nd October 2008, while he was travelling in his motorcycle bearing Registration No. JMU-D/9795, and near Government Girls School Nai Basti, Nowgam, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK03A/4605 (Tractor) owned and driven by respondent No.1, on general road came in a direction leading from Verinag to Kapran, hit
2 CMAM no.11/2011
the deceased and compressed him with the tree growing on the extreme corner of passenger’s pathway, resulting in his death. An FIR No.103/2008 was registered in Police Station Dooru. 3. With the aforesaid facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal, on a claim petition filed by legal heirs of the deceased (appellants herein) passed an award of Rs.11,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date respondent-Insurance Company was arrayed as party respondent in claim petition viz 24.04.2009. 4. Claimants/appellants, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded as also of interest @ 6% granted by the Tribunal, have come up with instant appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have also gone through the record of the Tribunal. 6. There is a substance in the submission of learned counsel for appellants that appellants are entitled to interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition and not from the date the respondent Insurance Company was made party respondent in the claim petition. So, to this extent, the impugned award requires to be modified. 7. In so far as the interest @ 8% as claimed is concerned, the Tribunal has given rightly 6% interest, which need not be interfered with. 8. Another submission of the appellants is that compensation on account of funeral rites/ expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is on lower side and requires to be enhanced to Rs. 1.00 lac. This submission needs discussion. 9. It is claimed by appellants that they proved before the Tribunal the income of deceased was more than Rs.6.00 Lacs to Rs.7.00 Lacs per
3 CMAM no.11/2011
annum and source of this income was: that deceased was B-Class contractor by profession and executing the works for more than Rs.4.00 Crores per annum; and deceased had lone more than 15 Kanals, which he would manage and look-after and would be generating income from that. Besides deceased, at the time of accident was 43 years as per date of birth certificate produced before the Tribunal and that to this extent, they had produced record before the Tribunal to establish source of income of deceased. It is, thus, stated that the Tribunal has wrongly taken Rs.10,000/- as income of deceased. 10. The above contention, when analysed in the context of impugned Award and record on the file, pales into insignificance. The reason being that the Tribunal while deciding Issue no.6, (Relief), has taken all aspects of the matter note of and considered as projected by appellants before it as also before this Court in the appeal on hand. It would be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of impugned Award vis-à-vis quantum of compensation. “….The petitioner herself states that the annual income of the deceased was rupees six lacs, her statement has been deferred but upon her further statement she has produce the pan card of the deceased, but the main question is that whether the deceased has paid the income tax on his income and payment at the source by the department is not sufficient unless the same is proved by the documentary evidence, merely showing the pan card does not entitle the petitioners to convince this court that the deceased was an income tax payer. About income this thing has been stated that at the time of payment the department was himself crediting the amount into the income tax. So for as the statement deposed y Syed Gulzar Ahmad is concerned he has stated that the annual income of the deceased was about six/seven lacs and would spend about three/four lacs on his domestic expenditure and rupees twenty thousand per month as personal expenses and would also give rupees five thousand to his mother as pocket money. It is strange that one of the witnesses of the petitioner Syed Arif Hussain gives totally different income of the deceased as eight to ten lacs per annum. P.W. Syed Farooq Ahmad has stated that the income of the deceased was eight to ten lacs as he
4 CMAM no.11/2011
was working as a B class contractor. The witnesses have further stated that he was not having any agricultural land, therefore, there is no any other source of income available to the deceased. Having regard to all facts and the statements of witnesses produced by the petitioners, the income of the deceased is taken as rupees ten thousand just and reasonable out of which rupees three thousand would be taken on his personal expenditure and rupees one thousand towards his mother. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is taken as 43 as per the Date of Birth certificate hence loss of dependency due to the petitioners comes to Rs.6,000X12X15=10,80,000/- by applying multiplier of 15 which is the appropriate multiplier. Petitioners are also entitled to rupees five thousand as expenses incurred on funeral rites of the deceased and rupees ten thousand as loss of consortium and rupees five thousand to each of the petitioner as loss of love and affection. Therefore the total compensation awarded to the petitioner comes to eleven lacs, which shall be paid by the insurance company in favour of the petitioners.”
As is evident from supra-quoted portion of the impugned Award, the Tribunal has discussed and attended to all and every contention and submission of claimants/appellants including the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and statement of witnesses produced before it and has, therefore, rightly calculated Rs.10,000/- as income of the deceased and on the basis thereof has given compensation on account loss of dependency. To this extent impugned Award need not be interfered with. 12. Another contention of appellants is that they have not been given compensation on account of pain and agony, besides the compensation given by the Tribunal on account of Funeral Expenses as Rs.10,000/- and Loss of love and affection as Rs.5,000/- is on lower side. Again, this contention of appellants also fails. The Tribunal has given Rs.5000/- as funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- to each of the petitioners as loss of love and affection.
In that view of matter the impugned Award to this does not call for any interference.
5 CMAM no.11/2011
For the reasons discussed above, the instant appeal is allowed only to the extent the interest given by the Tribunal from the date respondent – Insurance Company was arrayed as party respondent, i.e., 24.04.2009 and to that extent the impugned Award dated 22nd July 2011 is modified and it is provided and directed that interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company to the claimants from the date of presentation of claim petition, i.e., 18.10.2008, till its final realization. 14. Disposed of as above. 15. Copy be sent down along with record of the Tribunal.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 16.05.2023 “Ajaz Ahmad, PS” Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No.