1 Mac App. No. 25/2022 S. No. 18 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Mac App. No. 25/2022 UT of J&K and Ors. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG Vs. Rubiya Jan and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Advocate for R-1 to R-5 CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 22.05.2025 1. Impugned in this appeal is Award dated 03.03.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, (for short “Tribunal”) on a claim petition bearing File No.49/CP titled “Mst. Rubiya Jan ad Ors. v. State of J&K through Chief Secretary New Secretariat Jammu and Ors.”, directing the appellants to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 87,26,243/- (inclusive of Interim award, if any, passed) along with 9% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. A claim petition, as is discernable from perusal of the file, was filed by claimants/respondents before the Tribunal on 17.12.2016 averring therein that deceased, Altaf Hussain Dar, aged 30 years, died in an accident, which took place on 29.08.2016 at Tulibal Sopore, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle (Rakshak) bearing Registration No. JK05E-4701, causing thereby grievous injuries to the deceased resulting in death. Claimants/respondents in 2 Mac App. No. 25/2022 their claim petition before the Tribunal, sought grant of compensation of Rs. 1.00 Crore along with interest. 3. Appellant resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal on the ground that the offending vehicle was intercepted with unruly mob and the driver while turning the vehicle back skidded off the road, causing thereby grievous injuries to the deceased resulting in death, therefore, there is no rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending. 4. The Tribunal, in view of pleading of parties, framed three issues for determination, which are: (i) Whether on 29th day of August, 2016 deceased namely Altaf Hussain Dar was boarded on offending vehicle (Rakshak) bearing registration No. JK05E-4701 along with other police personnel on its way towards DPL, Sopore and while negotiating a sharp curve at Tulibal Sopora, the driver lost its control over the vehicle whereby the vehicle in question turned turtle as a result whereof the deceased on board sustained critical injuries and succumbed to his injuries at SKIMS Soura? OPP. (ii) In case issue No.1 is decided in affirmative then whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether respondent No.7 i.e. driver of offending vehicle was under the employment of defendants 1 to 6 and had been engaged and permitted to ply the offending vehicle? OPR 1-6. (iv) Relief. 5. Claimants/respondents produced and examined three witnesses before the Tribunal; besides the respondents 1 and 2. Appellant has produced only one witness in support of its stand. In terms of impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 87,26,243/- along with interest per annum. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material on record. 3 Mac App. No. 25/2022 7. Before considering the grounds taken by appellant in this appeal on which appellants have sought quashing of impugned award, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of case in hand. On account of death of deceased-Altaf Hussain Dar, his legal heirs filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.1.00 Crore by averring that on 29.08.2016, the deceased, who was working as Constable, boarded the offending vehicle along with other police personnel on their way to District Police Line (DPL), Sopore, and on reaching Tulibal Sopore, the driver of the offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving lost control of his vehicle which got turtled near link road, causing injuries to all the passengers including the deceased. The deceased, critically injured, was initially airlifted to 92 Base Army Hospital Badami Bagh for treatment wherefrom he was referred to SKIMS Soura and died because of fatal injuries on 01.09.2016. It is also averred in the claim petition that the deceased is survived by two minor sons, widow, father and mother and due to the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners are left in a state of despair, trauma, hopelessness and pain. The deceased was serving in a police department as Constable and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 23,781. Respondents herein/petitioners, accordingly claimed the compensation of Rs.1.00 crore. The appellants herein filed objections to the claim petition and contested the same on the ground that the accident was not due rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.7 in his objections stated that the petitioners/respondents herein have no cause of action against him as he was in the course of his employment, driving the departmental 4 Mac App. No. 25/2022 vehicle after his driving license was verified by the respondent No.6 and the accident has purely occurred due to bad condition of the road and the probability of law and order problem. It is also averred that the driver was driving with a speed of just 20-30 KMs per hour and the road being a link road and in a bad condition, as such, the claim of the petitioners is without any base and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence produced by the parties before it and while deciding the issues framed, came to the conclusion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle and held legal representatives entitled to the compensation Rs.84,96,243. 9. What is stated in the appeal is that the accident occurred due to the stone-pelting of the unruly mob at Tulibal Sopore, therefore, appellants herein are not liable to any compensation. The other grounds taken by appellants in the appeal are that the police investigation has concluded that there was no element of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the reply filed by appellants before it, in order to find out whether respondents/ claimants would be entitled to compensation on account of death of deceased. 10. Statement of the parties recorded during the course of trial would show whether the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent or not; and whether claimants were entitled to the compensation as legal heirs on account of death of the deceased or not. As regards negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is concerned, it is clear from the statement of Constable Mohd. Yousuf. He has stated in examination 5 Mac App. No. 25/2022 in chief that in the year 2016, he along with deceased and other police personnel were boarded in the vehicle and on reaching Tulibal Sopore, the driver had to turn the vehicle at a crossing, however, he lost control of the vehicle because of which vehicle skidded off the road, which resulted in an accident in which all the passengers got injured. The deceased had suffered serious injuries and died because of those injuries in SKIMS, Srinagar. He has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was Manzoor Ahmad and the vehicle belonged to the Police Department. He has stated during cross-examination that there was stone-pelting in the town on the date of accident and he along with deceased was going to District Police Line, Sopore. 11. Perusal of the statement of the witness produced by the appellants before the Tribunal makes it clear that accident in question has happened because of the driver of the offending vehicle who lost control of the vehicle which resulted in accident in question. This statement gets support from the objections filed by Respondent No.7, who also said that the accident occurred because of bad condition of the road and while driving the offending vehicle, he could not take proper care. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. 12. The appellants have also thrown challenge to the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while quantifying the compensation gave compensation on different heads. The Tribunal has given Rs.15,000 on account of the Loss of Estate; Rs.40,000/-, on account of Spousal Consortium; Rs.80,000/- on account of Parental Consortium; Rs.80,000/- on account of Filial 6 Mac App. No. 25/2022 Consortium and Rs.15,000/- on account of Funeral Expenses, therefore, the Tribunal has quantified compensation to be paid to the tune of Rs.87,26,243/-. The compensation has been determined on account of loss and under the conventional heads. The Tribunal has quantified the award on account of loss of income as Rs.84,96,243/-. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was working as Constable and so is the salary drawn by deceased. It is on the basis of the salary that calculation on account of loss of income has been made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th from the annual income as personal expenses. Nothing has been shown or stated which would be suggested by the counsel for the appellants that how the amount of compensation determined on account of loss of income and under the conventional heads was in excess. The Tribunal has taken proper multiplier and has rightly calculated the compensation for loss of income as per salary which deceased was receiving. No interference is thus warranted. 13. For the reasons discussed above, the instant appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.05.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 06.06.2025 14:20