BIMLA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.6.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur in M.A.C. Case No. 55 of 2001. Even though vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has allowed the claim application filed by the claimant- appellants and has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000 in favour of the appellant-claimants, payable by respondent No. 3, the grievance of appellants is that the aforesaid amount of compensation is on the lower side and that the same is required to be enhanced; hence this appeal.

(2.) In the accident which occurred on 14.2.2001, the deceased Sher Singh was driving a scooter (with due care and caution) but at about 1.30 p.m., while he was approaching Nimla, jeep No. HP 01-8407 coming from the aforesaid direction knocked down the deceased Sher Singh. He fell off the highway into a nearby nallah at a distance of 400-500 feet from the highway and as a result thereof he suffered grievous injuries and instantaneously succumbing to the same, died. The following five issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal for adjudication:

(3.) It has undoubtedly been proved that the deceased was employed as a Junior Engineer in H.P. State Electricity Board and that he was drawing the monthly salary (gross emoluments) of Rs. 13,071. On record of the Claims Tribunal's file is the salary certificate issued by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P. State Electricity Board, Ani, District Kullu which was exhibited as Exh. PW 1/H. This evidence has not at all been either rebutted or challenged by the respondents. If the deceased was drawing the emoluments of Rs. 13,071 per month, how much was he spending upon himself and how much should he have been contributing towards the maintenance of his family comprising five claimants? By applying any yardstick, on the touchstone of any permissible parameter on this subject, 1/3rd of the gross emoluments alone can be considered as the maximum amount that the deceased would have been spending on himself and 2/3rd would thus be the amount that he should have been contributing towards the upbringing and maintenance of his family members, (five in number) who were the claimants in the claim petition.