National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Azad Singh and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.

C.M. No. 16549-CII of 2009

For the reasons, mentioned in the application, delay of 6 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

F.A.O. No. 3666 of 2009

This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, is directed against the order dated 10.03.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar.

Having examined the records of the case, the only stress given by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Navin Kumar (deceased) was unmarried son and his parents were about 52 years old, therefore, multiplier of 18 has wrongly been applied by the Court.

Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years old and was unmarried son. The claimants are his parents. The income of the deceased-has been rightly assessed at Rs. 3,500/- as the minimum wages has been held to be Rs. 3,500/- as modified by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 27.06.2007 and Wages were likely to be increased with the passage of time. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the parameters of minimum wages which he was earning at the time of accident. It was also observed in case Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. appellants v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. respondents (2009) 155 P.L.R. 22 that in case the deceased is 25 years old, multiplier of 18 should be applied. No doubt the deceased was unmarried yet he was to be married within a year or so. In these circumsntances, the Tribunal did not commit any error by deducting 1/3rd with regard to the money which was used to be spent by the deceased for himself, and the remaining was used to be contributed for livelihood of his old parents.

In any case, even if the age of the parents is to be taken into consideration for applying the appropriate multiplier, then the age of the parents of the deceased was 52 years at the time of death of Navin Kumar (deceased). As due to the advanced medical sciences, the availability of better medical treatment and awareness of the diseases and their treatment, they could survive at least upto the age of 75. Thus, while examining the case of the respondents from that angle, the multiplier applied in this case cannot be said to be on the higher side.

As such, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.