National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Hira Devi and Others <BR> Smt. Hira Devi and Another Vs Kuldeep Sharma and Others

K.C. Puri, J.

1.Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of FAO No. 379 of 2001 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Hira Devi and others and FAO No. 1104 of 2001 titled as Smt. Hira Devi and another vs. Kuldeep Sharma and others, as both these appeals have arisen out of the same award. Smt. Hira Devi -mother, Vishwanath Singh -father and Sanju Kumari -sister of deceased Rajesh Singh, filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Rajesh Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The claim petition was partly accepted and a sum of Rs. 72,000/- was granted to the claimants. The claimants have preferred FAO No. 1104 of 2001 for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance company has preferred FAO No. 379 of 2001 claiming that Insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

According to the case of the claimants, deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month as a labourer. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,800/- per month under the Minimum Wages Act and 1/3rd amount was deducted in respect of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was taken as Rs. 1,200/- per month. Yearly dependency was taken as Rs. 14,400/- ( Rs. 1,200/- X 12). The age of the deceased was taken as 25 years and it is mentioned in the award that since he was of marriageable age, so multiplier of 5 should be applied. So, by applying the multiplier of 5, the amount of compensation has been calculated as Rs. 72,000/- ( Rs. .14,400/- X 5).

Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that multiplier of 5 is on lower side. He has further contended that no amount in respect of funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. has been granted.

Learned counsel for the Insurance company has submitted that multiplier has been rightly applied in view of age of the parents. The age of the parents has to be considered for calculating the multiplier.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for both the sides. The main case file is stated to have been burnt in the fire incident in the High Court and record of the Tribunal is also not available. So, the case has to be decided according to the reconstructed record.

So far as income of the deceased is concerned, that has not been challenged during the course of arguments. In this case age of the parents is not available on the record. However, the age of the deceased is available as 25 years. In case the age of the deceased is taken as 25 years, in that case, the age of mother has to be taken about less than 50 years. So, keeping in view the authority reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 13 is applicable. However, keeping in view the authority in Smt. Sarla Verma''s case (Supra), the dependency has to be calculated by applying the cut of 1/2 in respect of personal expenses of the deceased. So, the dependency of the claimants is taken as Rs. 900/-. The yearly dependency comes to Rs. 10,800/- ( Rs. 900/- X 12). By applying the multiplier of 13, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,40,400/- ( Rs. 10,800/- X 13). Another sum of Rs. 10,000/- stands allowed on account of transportation expenses, loss of estate etc. In this manner, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs. 1,50,400/-. Keeping in view the prevalent bank rates, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. However, the amount of Rs. 72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall carry the same rate of interest as ordered by the Tribunal.

So far as the liability to pay the amount is concerned, that shall be dealt in FAO No. 379 of 2001.

FAO No. 379 of 2001

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment, Assistant Ahlmad has produced driving licence Exhibit R-1. PW-2 Puran Singh, Licence Clerk, Ballabgarh has stated that licence No. 5064-B/95 tagged in the criminal proceedings stand in the name of Nitish Kumar for motor cycle and motor car only. So, it is contended that respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, was not holding a valid driving licence and as such the Insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

The onus to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence is upon the Insurance company. The Tribunal reached to the conclusion that Insurance company is liable. Respondent examined RW-8 Sh. C.R. Rana, SDO (Civil), Safidon, who has deposed that driving licence in question bearing No. 5064-B/95 bears his signatures. So, when a Gazetted Officer is deposing that the licence bears his signatures, in those circumstances, the licence in favour of respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be invalid. As discussed above, the Tribunal record is not available due to fire incident in the High Court. Counsel for the Insurance company has failed to connect that Exhibit R-1 is in respect of licence No. 5064-B/95. So, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Insurance company has failed to prove that licence in favour of respondent No. 1 is invalid, does not call for any interference.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal preferred by the Insurance company stands dismissed.

The appeal preferred by the claimants stands accepted to the extent referred to above. All the respondents are jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.