AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui
Since both the appeals arise out of common award, hence they are being decided by this common order. MA No. 2016/09 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by award dated 28.1.09 passed by 3rd Addl. MACT, Bhopal in MCC No. 917/08 whereas MA No. 1386/09 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurer on the grounds that excessive award has been passed, income has wrongly been assessed at Rs. 4,500/- per month, notional income ought to have been assessed, wrong multiplier has been applied.
Learned Counsel for the parties submit that there is no breach of the insurance policy. Only there is dispute of calculation and question of income.
Undisputedly, on 20.02.08 an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. PB-23-E/6514 which was driven by Amzad Khan, owned by Masroor Khan and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. In the accident one Bharat Singh sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The dependents of deceased Bharat Singh filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 63,50,000/-. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 6,73,000/-. Aggrieved by the award, both, the claimants and the insurer, have filed these appeals.
Learned Counsel for Insurer/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. submits that as per licence of deceased, his age at the time of accident was 32 years so his age has been wrongly considered to be 28 years.
Though, the prayer has been objected to by Learned Counsel for claimants, but where there is documentary evidence, then documentary evidence should be given preference. So, wrong calculation is there and, therefore, the age of deceased Bharat Singh is held to be 32 years and not 28 years.
Learned Counsel for insurer submits that income has not been proved specifically while the submission of Learned Counsel for claimants is that there is ample evidence that deceased was doing farming with his father and was also doing the business of clothes, so he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month by selling clothes and Rs. 2,500/- from agriculture.
Taking into consideration the evidence on record, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased @ Rs. 4,500/- per month which cannot be said to be excessive.
Learned Counsel for claimants further submits that 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has wrongly been applied as seven dependents are there. By placing reliance on authority of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , counsel submits that the deduction ought to have been 1/5th and not 1/3rd.
I am fully agree with the submission of Learned Counsel that as per decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (supra), the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/5th and not 1/3rd as seven dependents are there.
As the proved age of deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, so multiplier of 16 is applicable as per decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (supra) and not of 18. Therefore, it is held that multiplier of 18 would be applicable, and the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/5th and not 1/3rd as seven dependents are there.
Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is to be assessed that age of deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, so multiplier of 16 is applicable instead of 18. Therefore, assessing the age of deceased to be 32 years, and taking his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month, his yearly income would come at Rs. 54,000/-. After making 1/5th deduction towards the self expenditure of the deceased which amount he would have spent on himself had he been alive, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 43,200/-. The Tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier. Considering the age of deceased to be 32 years, multiplier of 16 should have been applied instead of 18, same is applied. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 43,200/- x 16 = Rs. 6,91,200/- (Rs. Six Lacs Ninety One Thousand & Two Hundred Only).
Learned Counsel for claimants further submits that under the customary heads total Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded to the claimants by learned Tribunal which is too meagre. Counsel prays for enhancement of the compensation under the customary head.
In the opinion of this Court, the total amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under the customary heads by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need to enhance the compensation under the customary heads.
In the result, the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,91,200/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 7,16,200/- (Rs. Seven Lacs Sixteen Thousand and Two Hundred Only). Rs. 6,73,000/- has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 7,16,200/- - Rs. 6,73,000/- = Rs. 43,200/- (Rs. Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred Only) is hereby enhanced. In case, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 43,200/- enhanced by this Court is not paid to the claimants within a period of three months from today, then it shall carry the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. In view of aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No costs.