Himachal Pradesh High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Ram Krishan & Others on 20 September, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
( 2024:HHC:9153 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
FAO No. 161 of 2015 a/w
FAO No. 162 of 2015
Date of decision: 20.09.2024
.
________________________________________________
(1) FAO No. 161 of 2015
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant
Versus
Ram Krishan & others. ......Respondents
(2) FAO No. 162 of 2015
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumari & others. ......Respondents
________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the appellant(s): Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate,
in both the appeals.
For the respondents: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate,
vice Mr. Anil Bansal, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 and 2 in
FAO No. 161 of 2015.
Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO
No. 162 of 2015.
Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for
respondent No. 5.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral)
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
Since both the appeals arise out of a common
accident and with respect to the death of the same person,
.
they are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The present appeals are maintained by the
appellant/Insurance Company, against the awards passed by
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur
Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the
MACT Rampur Bushahr") in MAC Petition No. 0100012 of
2012, decided on 07.04.2015 and Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the
MACT Shimla") in MAC Petition No. 20-S/2 of 2012/11,
decided on 10.03.2015.
3. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present
appeals are that claimants Ram Krishan and Pinku, who
were the petitioners before the learned MACT Rampur
Bushahr and claimants Santosh Kumari, Malika Devi and
Master Ashwani, who were the petitioners before the learned
MACT, Shimla, had preferred two separate petitions under
3 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV
Act"), seeking compensation on account of death of their
mother Bimla Devi.
.
4. As per the petitioners, on 24.04.2011, Bimla Devi
was travelling in Maruti Van No. HP-02A-0121 and was on
her way from Rampur to Pujarli. At about 4:45 P.M., the van
being driven by respondent Hans Raj alias Harbans rashly
and negligently went off the road and plunged into deep
gorge. In the aforesaid accident Bimla Devi sustained
multiple fractures of spinal skull and she succumbed to the
injuries. The post-mortem examination of Bimla Devi was
conducted at MGMSC, Khaneri. An FIR No. 27 of 2011,
dated 24.04.2011, under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC was
registered at Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P.
against respondent Hans Raj alias Harbans. Accordingly, the
petitioners filed two separate petitions claiming
compensation on account of death of their mother Bimla
Devi.
5. The respondents contested the claim of the
petitioners by filing separate reply(ies).
4 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
6. By filing rejoinder(s) to the reply(ies), contents of
the reply(ies) were denied and that of the rejoinder(s) were
re-asserted and re-affirmed.
.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
learned MACT Rampur Bushahr had awarded a sum of Rs.
6,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of
the petitioners Ram Krishan and Pinku and learned MACT
Shimla had awarded a sum of Rs. 7,77,800/- alongwith
interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the petitioners
Santosh Kumari, Malika Devi and Master Ashwani and in
both the awards, the Appellant Insurance Company was held
liable to pay the compensation amount.
8. Feeling dissatisfied, the Insurance Company
preferred the two separate appeals under Section 173 of the
Act for setting aside the impugned awards.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant(s), learned counsel for respective respondents and
carefully examined the entire record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the learned MACT Rampur Bushahr and the learned
5 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
MACT, Shimla, had ignored the fact that two separate claim
petitions have been filed for grant of compensation against
the death of same person, i.e. deceased Bimla Devi, as such
.
a common award is required to be passed by merging the
award dated 07.04.2015 passed by learned MACT Rampur
Bushahr in MAC Petition No. 0100012 of 2012 into the
award dated 07.04.2015 passed by learned MACT Shimla
and the amount of compensation has to be redetermined.
11. The perusal of the record reveals that deceased
Bimla Devi was the wife of late Sh. Nathu Ram and out of
her wedlock with late Sh. Nathu Ram, two sons i.e. Ram
Krishan and Pinku Ram were born. After the death of Nathu
Ram, Bimla Devi contracted second marriage with Sh.
Harbans Lal and out of this wedlock, two daughters namely
Santosh Kumari and Malika Devi and a son Master Ashwani
was born. Thus, there are two sets of legal representatives of
deceased Bimla Devi, i.e. one set of legal representatives out
of the wedlock between late Sh. Nathu Ram and deceased
Bimla Devi and another set of legal representatives out of
the wedlock between Sh. Harbans Lal and deceased Bimla
6 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
Devi. Both sets of legal representatives of deceased Bimla
Devi have filed two separate claim petitions before two different
claims Tribunals and separate awards have been passed
.
thereon, i.e. one by MACT Rampur Bushahr and another by
MACT Shimla.
12. In the opinion of this Court, two separate awards
could not have been passed with respect to the same accident
and with respect to the grant of compensation against death of
the same person, who had died in the accident in question.
13. However, an application was filed on behalf of the
appellant(s)/Insurance Company which has been registered as
CMP No. 17367 of 2024, wherein, it has been prayed that both
the appeals may be disposed of by re-determining the award
of compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- alongwith interest
@ 6% after merging both the awards and thereafter
apportionment of the same amongst all the claimants, i.e.
claimants in FAO No. 161/2015 and FAO No. 162/2015 in
equal shares. The learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants have no objection to the aforesaid
prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants /Insurance
7 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
company and to this effect statements of learned counsel for
the respondents/claimants have been recorded which read
as under:-
.
Statement of Mr. Devender Kumar, vice Mr. Anil
Bansal, Advocate, for claimants/respondents No. 1
and 2.
without oath
20.09.2024
Stated that claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 have
no objection in case the award, dated 07.04.2015,
passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., which is
under challenge in FAO No. 161/2015 is modified and
merged into the award, dated 10.03.2015 passed by
the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III),
Shimla,H.P., which is under challenge in FAO No.
162/2015 and a common award granting
compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- alongwith
interest @ 6% is passed in favour of the
claimants/respondents in both the appeals. Further,
claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO No.
161/2015 have no objection in case the aforesaid
amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% is
apportioned amongst all the claimants, i.e. claimants
in FAO No. 161/2015 and FAO No. 162/2015 in equal
shares.
Statement of Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate, for
claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3.
without oath
20.09.2024
Stated that claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 have no
objection in case the award, dated 10.03.2015, passed
by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III),
8 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
Shimla, H.P., which is under challenge in FAO No.
162/2015 is modified and merged into the award,
dated 07.04.2015 passed by the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur
Bushahr, H.P., which is under challenge in FAO No.
.
161/2015 and a common award granting
compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- alongwith
interest @ 6% is passed in favour of the
claimants/respondents in both the appeals. Further,
claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 162/2015
have no objection in case the aforesaid amount of
Rs. 7,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% is apportioned
amongst all the claimants, i.e. claimants in FAO No.
161/2015 and FAO No. 162/2015 in equal shares."
14.
Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, the award passed by learned MACT
Rampur Bushahr in MAC Petition No. 0100012 of 2012,
dated 07.04.2015 is required to be merged into the award
passed by learned MACT Shimla in MAC Petition No. 20-S/2
of 2012/11, dated 10.03.2015 and a common award is
required to be passed.
15. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, this Court deems it fit to modify and merge
the impugned award passed by learned MACT Rampur
Bushahr in MAC Petition No. 0100012 of 2012, dated
07.04.2015 and the impugned award passed by learned
9 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
MACT Shimla in MAC Petition No. 20-S/2 of 2012/11, dated
10.03.2015 by passing a common award as under:-
Head Amount
.
(i) Loss of dependency Rs. 4,95,000/-
(ii) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000,/-
(iii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Parental consortium Rs. 2,00,000/- (40,000/- each,
to three sons and two
daughters of the deceased in
both the appeals)
16. to
Total compensation awarded Rs. 7,25,000/-
The aforesaid amount of compensation awarded
in favour of all the claimants/respondents in FAO No.
161/2015 and FAO No. 162/2015 shall be apportioned
amongst them in equal shares.
17. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion
made here-in-above, both the impugned awards stand
modified and are merged together. The award passed by
learned MACT Rampur Bushahr in MAC Petition No.
0100012 of 2012, dated 07.04.2015 is merged into the award
passed by learned MACT Shimla in MAC Petition No. 20-S/2
of 2012/11, dated 10.03.2015 and a common award, as
aforesaid, is passed in favour of the claimants/respondents
10 ( 2024:HHC:9153 )
in both the appeals. The appeals stand disposed of in the
above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
.
( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
20th September, 2024
(raman)
r to
