AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
27 paragraphs · 1,020 wordsPuneet Gupta, J
The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award dated 30.06.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu whereby the claimants have been held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.11 lacs along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the awarded amount. The Tribunal also provided the manner in which the claimants are to be paid the award amount. The claimants have also filed cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal.
The award is challenged by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased; that the wrong multiplier of 16 has been applied by the Tribunal though the multiplier was required to be scaled down by the Tribunal while applying the multiplier and that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded consortium and loss of estate in favour of the claimants.
The claimants have stated in their cross appeal that the Tribunal has wrongly reduced the earning of the deceased to Rs.9000/- per month and ignored the implementation of sixth pay commission report which would have enhanced the future prospects of earning of the deceased and that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of deceased which should not have been more than 1/4th of total income of deceased.
The accident which took away the life of Bishamber Dass in the road accident on 12.11.2004 near Village Kullian is not in dispute. The claimants in the claim petition were required to be awarded just compensation in the light of what has come on record. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as envisaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be seen by the court.
The Tribunal has held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9000/- per month. The deceased was employed in the Army. The certificate of pay of the deceased along with the statement of the witness from the Army, namely, Janak Raj is on record. The court finds no error in holding that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal was required to deduct the income tax from the salary of the deceased while calculating the compensation amount in favour of the claimant. The appellant-Insurance Company has failed to place on record if any tax was required to be deducted in the case in hand and thus the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company cannot find favour with the court.
The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants are the wife and three minor children of the deceased. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the Income of the deceased under aforesaid head, the counsel for the claimants has argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th keeping in view the number of dependents of the deceased. The court is of the view that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (AIR 2009 SC 3104) is required to be applied in the case in hand while determining the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the judgment and the fact that the deceased has four dependants including three minor children the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as held by the Tribunal.
The claimants will also be entitled to the compensation on account of loss of future earning of the deceased who was permanently employed in the Army at the time of his death. As the deceased was having permanent job and was 41 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 there should be addition of 30% of the actual salary of the deceased while calculating future prospects.
The age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of accident, therefore, the multiplier of 14 is required to be applied in the case in hand keeping in view the ratio applied in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). The Tribunal has also awarded loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased at Rs.15000/- which is also required to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The minor children are also entitled to parental consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each as per the judgment of Apex Court in case titled The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Somwati and others (Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020 decided on 07.09.2020). The Tribunal has awarded funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- which is enhanced to Rs.15000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15000/- under the heading loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation which is required to be awarded to the claimants under different heads is as under:
Income : Rs.9000/-
Future prospects : Rs.9000/- + Rs.2700/-= Rs.11,700/-
(30% of Rs.9000/-)
Deduction towards personal : Rs.2925/- (1/4th of Rs.11,700/-)
expenditure
Total dependency : Rs.8775/- (Rs.11,700 – Rs.2925)
Age multiplier : 14
Compensation : Rs.8775/- x 12 x 14
=Rs. 14,74,200/-
Loss of Consortium : Rs. 1,60,000/-
Loss of funeral expenses : Rs. 15000/-
Loss of Estate : Rs. 15000/-
Total : Rs. 16,64,200/-
(rounded to Rs.16,64,000/-)
The claimants-respondents are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.16,64,000/- along with interest awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the whole amount from the Insurance Company.
The appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed and the cross appeal filed by the claimants is allowed as the award is modified to the extent mentioned above.
Disposed of.