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. 3170/09 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by award dated 31.3.09 passed by Ist Addl. MACT, Rewa in Claim Case No. 98/07 whereas MA No. 3040/09 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurer on the grounds that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the liability, the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and the Company has wrongly been made liable, excessive award has been passed, income has wrongly been assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month, notional income ought to have been assessed.
The case of the claimants was that Ramsiya Tiwari, husband of claimant Smt. Anita Tiwari, son of Ramashray Tiwari and father of claimants Rohit Tiwari, Poonam Tiwari and Amit Tiwari who was 39 years old and was running a dairy and working as a salesman thereby earning Rs. 5700/- per month and used to give shelter to the claimants, on 13.5.06 at about 7-8 pm in the evening when was going on his Luna, respondent no. 2 Sugreev Vishwakarma who was employed as driver of respondent no. 1 Amritlal Gupta, drove Tata 407 No. MP17-C/5029 rashly and negligently and dashed Ramsiya Tiwari who succumbed due to the injuries. The claimants lost the sole bread earner of the family, therefore, they claimed for compensation of Rs. 6,12,000/- before the Tribunal.
Respondents/owner, driver and insurer contested the case by filing separate written statements and it was alleged by the respondents that vehicle was not involved in the accident and respondents have been falsely implicated in the case in order to realize the money.
After due trial, vide award dated 31.3.09, Ist Addl. MACT, Rewa where the claim case no. 98/07 was registered, partially allowed the claim case and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,21,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 27.10.06.
Claimants filed MA No. 3170/09 praying for enhancement of Rs. 2,90,500/- on the ground that monthly income of the deceased has not been assessed properly, meagre amount has been awarded, multiplier has not been applied correctly.
I have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the original record.
As far as age of deceased is concerned, the age of deceased was 39-40 years. In the postmortem report, age of the deceased has been given as 40 years. So, assessment ought to have been done between the age group of 36-40 years. As per authority in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the multiplier to be applied between the age group of 36-40 years should be 15, while multiplier of 13 has been applied by the Tribunal.
As far as income of the deceased is concerned, though the income was shown to be Rs. 5700/- per month, but no documentary evidence has been produced and Tribunal has rightly held that income could not be assessed at Rs. 5700/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month income assessed by the learned Tribunal is as per existing living standard.
Learned Counsel for Insurer has vehemently argued that there was no mention in the FIR of the vehicle and vehicle was seized after so many months.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for claimants has submitted that matter was forthwith reported and police investigated the matter and vehicle was seized. He submits that even from the evidence of respondent Amritlal Gupta and other witnesses, it was to be presumed that vehicle was found near the place of accident so the Tribunal has rightly assessed the liability.
In the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has rightly held that the respondents were liable and the alleged vehicle which was insured with the insurer/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was involved in the accident. Therefore, the insurer is rightly held to be liable to make payment of compensation.
It is submitted that 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has wrongly been applied. By placing reliance on authority of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, counsel submitted that the deduction ought to have been 1/4th and not 1/3rd.
In Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (supra), the Apex Court held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. So, the Tribunal has wrongly applied 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The deduction towards personal and living expenses is hereby modified to one-fourth (1/4th) instead of 1/3rd.
Learned Counsel for claimants further submitted that under the customary heads only Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate (total Rs. 9,500/-) has been awarded by learned Tribunal, he submitted that even under the head of loss of consortium no amount has been awarded. Counsel prays for enhancement of the amount under the customary head. 14. In the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded under the customary heads is too meagre. It is hereby enhanced in lump sum to a total of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only), meaning thereby a further sum of Rs. 10,500/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Five Hundred Only) is enhanced under the customary heads.
Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is to be assessed that age of deceased was 39 years at the time of accident, so multiplier of 15 is applicable instead of 13. Therefore, assessing the age of deceased to be 39 years, and taking his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, his yearly income would come at Rs. 36,000/-. After making 1/4th 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. 27,000/-. The Tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier. Considering the age of deceased to be 39 years, multiplier of 15 should have been applied instead of 13, same is applied. The compensation on account of loss of dependency, thus, comes to Rs. 27,000/- x 15 = Rs. 4,05,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs Five Thousand Only). In addition, lump sum amount of Rs. 10,500/- is further enhanced under the customary heads. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 4,05,000/- + Rs. 10,500/- = Rs. 4,15,500/- (Rs. Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand and Five Hundred Only). Rs. 3,21,500/- has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 4,15,500/- - Rs. 3,21,500/- = Rs. 94,000/- (Rs. Ninety Four Thousand Only) is hereby enhanced. The amount of Rs. 94,000/- enhanced by this Court to carry the simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 31.3.09, that is, from the date of award passed by learned Ist Addl. MACT, Rewa. In view of aforesaid discussion, MA No. 3170/09, filed by claimants is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent and the cross objection filed by Insurer/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is hereby dismissed. M.A. No. 3040/09 filed by appellant Insurer/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No costs.