State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. vs Khursheed Begum

Bhawani Singh, Chief Justice.

Admit.

Heard on merits, since the lady has been deprived of the compensation for the last many years.

Briefly, the evening of 2131988, the deceased was coming towards his house. He was crushed to death by Truck No. 9251 JKQ driven by

Driver Kartar Singh, owned by Mechanical Division, Rajouri. It was carrying departmental pipes and was on way from Jammu to Rajouri and the

accident took place at Kalakote near the temple and it is alleged that it was on account of rash and negligent driving by Driver Kartar Singh.

Deceased Mohd Aslam was Foreman in Thermal Power Project. He was the sole bread earner of the family who, left behind Smt. Khursheed

Begum (Widow), Ms. Ruksana Akhter (Daughter) and Mohd. Ashaq (Son). The deceased was drawing Rs. 1,7007 per month at this time.

Respondent has admitted factum of this vehicle being involved in this accident, but has denied that it took place due to rash and negligent driving.

Claim for compensation to the extent preferred by the claimants has been disputed. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has also filed objections and

has also denied the accident for want of knowledge, but admitted that the vehicle was insured with it with the limited liability and that the Driver had

been acquitted by the Court as occurrence was not proved. Accident compensation claimed has already been deposited. Consequently, on the

pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

Whether the deceased Mohd Aslam died in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 Kartar Singh of vehicle No.

9251JKQ on 21.3.1988 near a temple in Kalakote. O.P.P.

In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and to what extent? O.P.P.

In case issue No.2 is proved the respondents are liable in what proportions? O.P.P.

Relief.

After the trial, it was decided that the deceased died in this accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by Kartar Singh and

respondents were, therefore, liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion over the accident compensation to the extent of Rest. 2,40,4007, payment of Rest. 1,0007 caused on litigation and interest at the rate

of 16% per annum from the date of filing of petition; namely, 1791988 till the payment of amount. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the matter was

brought before this Court. Single Judge decided this matter by decision of April 25,1995 and Appeal was dismissed. Not contended with these

two litigations, the present Appeal has been filed before the Division Bench under the Letters Patent Act. We have perused the grounds taken in

Appeal and the impugned Judgment as well as the award of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

Mrs. Seema Khajuria Shekher contends that the matter has not been appreciated correctly in the light of evidence produced in this case, with

the result that excessive compensation has been awarded. Learned counsel also contends that the multiplier is in I the higher side. So far as the first

contention (is concerned, we have perused the evidence ,on record to examine the contention. The de(ceased was Foreman, aged 40 at the

relevant time. He was employed with Thermal Power jProject. He was earning Rs. 1,700/ per month. ^Reasonably, he could earn further

promotions an the service. He left behind widow, a daughtier and a son, all dependent on him. The Trigiunal has fixed datum figure at Rs. 1,2000/

Per month in this case. Therafter, multiplier of a 6 has been applied. Reasonable multiplier tpas been applied. Therefore, we have simply p) see

whether this extent of compensation is reasonable or excessive. Fixing the datum figure at Rs. 1,2000/ is quite reasonable. Thus concluded, the

award of compensation by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and does not call for interference by this Court.

Now the question arises with respect to the liability to pay the compensation. Persual of Section 95(2)(a) of Motor Vehicle Act, as it existed on

the date of accident, clearly stipulates that liability of Insurance Company with respect to goods vehicles is to the extent of Rs. one lac fifty

thousand. In view of these statutory provisions, the Award as well as the judgment of the single Judge deserves to be modified.

Consequently, we direct that our of the total amount of compensation payable in this case, Rest. 1,50,000/ would be paid by the Oriental

Insurance Company Limited along with interest awarded by the Tribunal below to the extent of this liability on this amount instead of Rest. 50,000/

as awarded by the Tribunal. Cost on parties.