Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU w
MA No. 396/2011 c/w CCROS No. 32/2011
The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd.
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Amrit Sarin, Adv.
Bholi Devi and others .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. P. S. Parmar, Adv.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
ORAL
The appellant/insurance company as well as claimants/respondents 1 to 4 (appellants in CCROS No. 32/2011) have impugned the award dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant-insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 9,53,600/- along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization to the claimants/respondents 1 to 4, as compensation on account of death of Vijay Kumar Anand. 2. The appellant/insurance company has impugned the award on the ground that the deductions from the salary of the deceased were required to be made but the learned Tribunal has not done so and further that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on higher side. On the 26
MA No. 396/2011 and CCROS No. 32/2011
contrary, the claimants have impugned the award on the ground that just compensation has not been awarded to them. 3. Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel representing the appellant-insurance company has laid much stress upon the statement of PW Chanchel Singh, Senior Assistant PDD so as to demonstrate that in fact the carry home salary of the deceased was Rs. 10,975/- only but the learned Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs. 13,035/- for the purpose of computing the compensation. 4. On the contrary, Mr. P. S. Parmar, learned counsel representing claimants/respondents 1 to 4 submits that only the income tax can be deducted from the salary of the deceased employee for the purpose of computing the compensation and as such, the learned Tribunal was right in considering the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.13,035/-. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The respondent No. 1 being the wife, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the minor sons and respondent No. 4 being the mother of the deceased, namely, Vijay Kumar Anand, who came to demise in a vehicular accident on 18.03.2010 filed a claim petition for grant of compensation. It needs to be noted that during the pendency of the present petition, respondent No. 4 has also passed away. 7. Since the issue raised by the contesting parties before this court is in respect of quantum of compensation only as such there is no necessity in mentioning in detail the factual aspects of the case.
MA No. 396/2011 and CCROS No. 32/2011
From the record, it is evident that the deceased was a Government employee working in the PDD Department and his monthly salary was Rs. 13,035/-. PW Chanchel Singh has proved the salary certificate of the deceased. A perusal of the same reveals that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 13,035/- and the net salary was Rs. 10,975/-. A perusal of the salary certificate (Ex P-CS) reveals that amount of Rs. 1000/- each has been deducted on account of GP fund as well as refund. Rs. 100/- have been deducted on account of festival advance. 9. The contention of Mr. Sarin that the deductions made from the salary of the deceased were required to be excluded while computing the compensation, is misconceived, as the deductions made form the salary of the deceased in fact formed part of the salary being investment and refund of the amounts already received by the deceased from his employer. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 13,035/-. The learned Tribunal has deducted one-third of the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses from the salary of the deceased, whereas the 1/4th of the income was required to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased, as there were four dependents upon the deceased. Further as the deceased was having a permanent employment with the Government, so his monthly income was required to be enhanced at the rate of 15%, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 51 years in terms of judgments of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi
MA No. 396/2011 and CCROS No. 32/2011
Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- as funeral expenses instead of Rs. 15000/- and further sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded to the respondent No. 1 on account of loss of consortium instead of Rs. 40,000/- each to the claimants in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130. 11. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company as well as the cross appeal filed by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (respondent No. 4 is now dead) are partly allowed. As such, the compensation payable to the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 is as under: Loss of dependency
Rs. 14,84,076/- (11,243x12x11) Loss of consortium
Rs. 1,20,000/- Loss of estate
Rs. 15000/- Funeral expenses:
Rs. 15,000/- Total
Rs. 16,34,076/- (Rs. Sixteen lacs Thirty Four thousand seventy six only)
The amount mentioned above shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company with the Registry be released in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 after their proper identification. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the appellant/insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization within three weeks from today in the Registry. On deposit thereof, the same be
MA No. 396/2011 and CCROS No. 32/2011
released in favour of the claimants/respondents after their proper identification. The award impugned is modified accordingly. Record be sent back forthwith. 13. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu 17.08.2023 Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No