AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant has challenged award dated 10th November, 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Udhampur in Claim
Petition no. 63/Claim, titled Farid Hussain & another versus Mohd. Rafiq & other on the ground taken in the memo of appeal.
Respondent nos. 1 & 2, being the victim of the vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udhampur
for grant of compensation on the ground, that their father namely Abdul Majid, who was traveling in the vehicle/goods carrier truck bearing no.
336/JKZ, which was being driven by Mohd. Rafiq, driver, rashly and negligently met with an. accident near Marothi on Sudh Mahadev Dudu
Road on 21.01.1988 and lost his life in the said accident.
Respondents have filed their objections.
Following issues came to be framed:
Whether on 21.1.88 Vehicle no. 336/JKZ driven by respondent no.1 under the employment of respondent nos. 2 & 3 rashly and negligently
met with an accident near Marothi on Sudh Mahadev Dudu Road in consequence of which Ab. Majid who has also travelling in the ill fated vehicle
along with others sustained grievous injuries and died on spot?
OPP
Whether the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3000/ at the time of his death, if so what is its effect on the petition?
OPP
Whether the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle as such respondent no.3 is not entitled to pay any amount
to the deceased?
OPR3
Relief.
Claimants/respondents have examined the witnesses including driver Mohd. Rafiq. Virtually the appellant had admitted that deceased was travelling
in the truck. He died because the truck met with an accident and cause of the accident was heavy rain.
It also appears that batch of claim petitions came to be filed and the Tribunal recorded the findings that the accident was outcome of rash and
negligent driving of the driver.
In the given circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in favour of the claimants arid against the appellantWhile going through the
memo of appeal, the appellant has questioned the award only on two grounds viz; (1) that the claim petition, was admittedly time barred, (2) that
compensation awarded is excessive.
The learned counsel argued that the award is not justified on the said two grounds.
Admittedly the deceased was a labourer and was also working as RajMistri. He was earning Rs.100/ per day.
Appellant has not led any evidence in. rebuttal. Thus, it can safely be held that he was earning Rs.3000/ per month as labourer/daily wager. It is but
natural that he would have been, spending l/3rd for his personal expenses and rightly the Tribunal had assessed loss of dependency to the tune of
Rs.2000/ per month. Admittedly, age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of death and the multiplier 'Sixteen' as per Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicles Act is applicable, but the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 'Ten', but unfortunately claimants/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have
neitherquestioned the award to that extent by way of appeal nor by a cross objection. Reluctantly, the multiplier 'Ten' applied by the Tribunal is
maintained.
Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that the claim petition was to be dismissed on the count that it was barred by time. I am of the view
that, argument of the learned counsel for the ' appellant is not tenable for the following reasons:
The Motor Vehicle Act has gone thorough a sea change and the provision, whereunder the time frame was fixed, came to be deleted by the
amendment and now in terms of the amendment, a claim petition can be filed at any time. Limitation will not come in the way of the claimants for
seeking benefit of this social legislation.
Apex Court in cases titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus C. Padma & anr., reported as AIR 2003, SC, 4394, Dhannalal versus
D.P.Vijayvargiya & Ors., reported as AIR 1996 SC, 2155 and Vinod Guruclas Raikar versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 2156,
laiddown the same law.
It is also apt to mention here in that the appellant has not taken this issue before the Tribunal in objections/reply nor by way of any other mode.
Thus the appellant cannot raise this issue now.
In the given circumstances, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, along with all CMPs.