National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Satto Devi and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—These are two appeals which have been filed by the Insurance Company. The Award is dated 01.5.2010; three persons had died in an accident which had occurred on 26.2.2006 at about 1.30 PM; the appeal has been filed qua the amount awarded in favour of the legal representative of the Pushpender Pal Singh and Madhu; the victims along with Vipin Jain were travelling in a TATA Indica car when the car fell into the river ''Vyas'' pursuant to which all the occupants of the car had died. The claimants were the parents of the deceased Pushpender Pal Singh and the in-laws of the deceased Madhu. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 18,72,264/- had been awarded in favour of the claimants qua the death of Pushpender Pal Singh; compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- had been awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased Madhu. Interest had been awarded @ 8% per annum.

The Award has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company for the amount awarded to the legal representatives of both the husband and wife namely Pushpender Pal Singh and Madhu. Contention regarding the claim of the husband is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is wrong. The age of the claimant or the age of the deceased whichever is higher has to be taken into account. In this case record clearly shows that the age of the claimant was 54 years and this was the factor which had to be borne in mind while applying the multiplier but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18 by keeping in view the age of the victim i.e. of Pushpender Pal Singh who was aged 23 years. The same argument has also been advanced to qua the claim awarded in favour of legal representative of deceased Madhu; it is pointed out that the father in law of Madhu was aged about 54 years; the multiplier of 11 should have been adopted keeping in view the higher age of the claimant and not the age of the victim.

This submission had not been countered by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. There appears to be an error on this count made by the Tribunal and it accordingly requires a correction. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that in the case of the husband (Pushpender Pal Singh) deduction should have been 1/2 and not 1/3 and this is in view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, It is pointed out that apart from the parents of the victim he had No. other dependant. His wife had also died in the accident and the deceased had No. other liability; he had No. issue. This submission is also not countered by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

There is No. dispute to the other facts.

Keeping in view the aforenoted scenario the modified award in the case of husband Pushpender Pal Singh will accordingly read as under:

Rs. 8619 (salary) +Rs. 4309 (50% future prospects) =

Rs. 12929 - Rs. 6464 (50% deductions) x12x11=

Rs. 8,53,248/-.

The amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads calls for No. interference. Interest awarded @ 8% per annum also calls for No. interference. The total awarded amount in the case of Pushpender Pal Singh would be Rs. 8,83,248/-.

The modified award in the case of Madhu will accordingly read as under:

Rs. 3000x12=36000x11=3,96,000+the amount of Rs. 10,000

awarded under the non-pecuniary head.

The total awarded amount will be Rs. 4,06,000/-; it will carry interest @ 8% per annum.

The aforenoted amounts shall be disbursed to the claimants in the manner as set out in the Award dated 01.5.2010.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that the Insurance Company has deposited the amount over and above the amount which has now been modified. The excess amount is ordered to be refunded back to the Insurance Company along with the statutory amount.

Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.