Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 345 of 2012
Smt. Geeta Devi & others
……. Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others …..... Respondents
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants / claimants. Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Insurance Co.
List of cases referred:
(2009) 6 SCC 121, Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another. 2. AIR 2017 SC 5157, National Insurance Company vs Pranay Sethi
Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment/award dated 07.05.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.T. case no. 20 of 2008, Smt. Geeta Devi and others Vs M/s R.R. Construction and another, whereby said Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,73,700/- to the claimants to be paid by insurance company along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Brief facts of the case, are that on 05.01.2008 when Ranjeet Ram Arya along with his friend on going to Sitarganj from Village Shisona on a motorcycle and reached near Village Bamanpuri and was talking there after alighting from the motorcycle with someone he met with an accident with a Dumper no. UA 07C / 8271, which dashed him after coming from the side of Sitarganj and was
2 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Ranjeet Ram Arya suffered grievous injuries and was declared brought dead at C.H.C. Sitarganj. The deceased was aged 48 years at the time of accident. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working as Lecturer in Govt. Inter College, Madlack, Tehsil Lohaghat, District Champawat and used to earn Rs.18,495/- per month. The claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,83,000/- Owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle and National Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom the offending vehicle was insured, were made party to the claim petition.
On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues: i) Whether the accident in question took place on 05.01.2008, at about 12:30 P.M., near Village Bamanpuri, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Ashoka Leyland no. UA 07C / 8271 by its driver, who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and due to which Ranjeet Ram Arya sustained grievous injuries resulting into his death? If yes, its effect? ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? If yes, its effect? iii) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom?
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties decided issue nos. (i) in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Issue no. (ii) was decided holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Issue no. (iii) was decided in favour of the claimants and a
3 compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,73,700/- was granted to them to be paid by the insurance company within a period of two months from the date of passing of award. Aggrieved by the insufficiency of compensation thus awarded, appellants / claimants have preferred present appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.
Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in calculating the income of deceased at Rs.1,51,140/- per annum and in not taking into consideration the income of the deceased as proved by District Education Officer after implementation of 6th Pay Commission the deceased was getting Rs.24,130/- per month as salary. He would also urge that while deciding issue no. (iii) in regard to calculating the compensation, the learned Tribunal had deducted GPF, Advance GPF allowance, Bima Nidhi and further deducted Rs.415/- towards HRA, whereas these deductions are carry home by the deceased if he would have been alive and the same cannot be deducted at the time of calculating the compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants would further urge that the multiplier has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal on the lower side while passing the award, as such, the compensation awarded is insufficient.
4 8)
As regards the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier has been applied on the lower side while awarding the compensation, I do not find force in this argument. It is settled proposition of law that multiplier method is an appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptionally. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma1 has specifically held that the choice of multiplier should be determined by the age of the deceased. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma1 case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company would urge that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence of the case after perusing the relevant documents brought on record and has rightly passed the award by granting compensation to the tune of Rs.15,73,700/- in favour of the claimants.
10) This is an appeal for enhancement filed by the appellants / claimants. As the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on other issues have not been put to challenge by the respondents, thus said findings in regard to the rash and negligent driving and possession of valid & effective driving license are hereby affirmed.
5 11) Now this Court has to consider as to how much compensation the appellant is entitled on account of death of Ranjeet Ram Arya.
12) Having gone through the appeal filed by the claimants / appellants, this Court is of the view that the deceased, who was aged 48 years, working as Lecturer in Govt. Intermediate College was on permanent job. Paper no. 36C/4 in regard to the salary certificate of late Ranjeet Ram Arya, which is on record would reveal that on 05.01.2008 (on the date of accident) the deceased was getting basic pay of Rs. 19,670/- + Dearness allowance of Rs.2360/- + H.R.A. of Rs. 1680 and Hill allowance of Rs. 420, totalling to Rs. 24,130/- as gross income. Thus, in view of this Court the annual income of the deceased should be calculated by taking the monthly income at Rs. 24,130/-. Thus the annual income comes to Rs.2,89,560/- minus income tax paid by the deceased. It appears to this Court that future prospects as well as appropriate compensation towards conventional heads have not been correctly appreciated and awarded to the claimants, in the present case.
13) Indisputably, deceased was a Govt. employee and was working on the post of Lecturer and was getting Rs.24,130/- per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,89,560. An amount of Rs.14,420/- has to be deducted on account of income tax (without any statutory deduction) paid by the deceased during the financial year. Thus, Rs.2,75,140/- will be the actual annual income of the deceased. By applying
6 the principle of Sarla Verma1 after deducting 1/5 towards personal expenses the dependency comes to Rs. 55,028/-. Thus, the annual dependency is assessed at Rs. 2,20,112/- (Rs.2,75,140 – Rs.55,028). Therefore, loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 13 comes to Rs.28,61,456 (Rs.2,20,112 x 13). The appellants are also entitled to claim loss of future prospects at the rate of 30% in view of Pranay Sethi2 (as the deceased was aged 48 years and was on permanent job) which works out to Rs.8,58,436/-. Further the appellants are also entitled to get Rs.15,0000, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. In toto, claimants are entitled to get Rs. 37,89,892/- as compensation.
14) The compensation and damages is being re-assessed as under:
Sl. No. Head Calculation (amount in Rupees) 1 Loss of dependency (Rs.2,20,112 x 13 + 30% future prospect) 37,19,892 2 Loss of estate 15,000 3 Loss of consortium 40,000 4 Funeral expenses 15,000 5. Total 37,89,892
15) In view of the above, the appellant is entitled to claim Rs. 37,89,892/- by way of compensation along with simple interest at the rate of 7% thereon. Since it is proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd.,
7 the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
16) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the insurance company shall pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 37,89,892/- to the claimants along with simple interest at the rate of 7 per cent from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of actual payment. The amount already paid, if any, by the insurance company shall be adjusted. Lower court record be sent back.
17) No order as to costs.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
Dt. November 07, 2019. Negi