New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Saneh Deep Singh and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, claiming

compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,40,000/-(Rupees twenty one lacs and forty thousand) as per the break-up given in the claim petition on the

following grounds:

That one Habib Shiraj Ahmed, respondent No. 4, has driven vehicle (Tanker) bearing registration No. UP 42-4175 rashly and negligently at

Shivpuri, Varanasi, and hit scooter bearing registration No. 65K-9381. Sukhwinder Singh, deceased and one Om Parkash were on the scooter.

The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The deceased, 37 years of age, was serving as Assistant Manager, Hill and

Associate India Private Limited and was having monthly salary of Rs. 12,667/-. Appellant- Insurer and respondent Nos. 4 & 5, driver and owner

respectively, resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed:

Whether an accident took place on 20.07.2001 at Shivpuri, Varanasi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. UP 42-

4175 by its driver/respondent No. 1 in which deceased Sukhwinder Singh has died? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation; if so of what amount and from whom? OPP

Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid driving licence? OPR-3

Whether claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties, if so who are the parties? OPR-3

Relief. O.P. Parties.

Claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 examined Harvir Singh and Joginder Singh in support of their claim and statement of one of the claimants namely

Narinder Kour was also recorded. Insurer, driver and owner, have not led any evidence in rebuttal. Thus, evidence led by the claimants have

remained unrebutted. Insurer-appellant, moved an application in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter for short referred to

as 'Act') for grant of permission to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to the owner and driver, came to be granted by the

Tribunal vide order dated 22.08.2003.

Learned Counsel for the Insurer-appellant confined his argument only on the quantum of compensation. He frankly conceded that the Insurer

has failed to discharge the onus in order to prove issue Nos. 3 & 4. He has also not challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal vis-a-vis issue

No. 1.

In the given circumstances, the core question involved in this appeal is; whether appellant/insurer can challenge the award so far as it relates to

quantum of compensation. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 149 of the Act, the insurer has limited grounds in its armoury to defend/resist

the claim petition. But it can seek permission in terms of Section 170 of the Act. In the instant case, it had sought and the learned Tribunal granted

the said permission. Thus, the insurer/appellant can challenge the quantum of compensation.

The claimants have proved that the deceased was of 37 years of age and was drawing Rs. 12,667/- as monthly salary at the relevant point of

time. Learned Counsel for Insurer has not disputed the said fact also. However, he argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error while assessing the

income of the deceased and determining the loss of dependency. While elaborating the argument, he argued that neither the claimants/respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 have pleaded nor proved the future prospect of the deceased even there is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that what would have

been the next grade or rank of the deceased.

I have gone through the claim petition and record. Neither the claimants have pleaded nor proved the said fact. The Apex Court in a case Bijoy

Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors. 2006 (2) Supreme 374, held that when no evidence was brought regarding future prospects, there was

no reason to interfere with the award. It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the judgment hereunder:

...The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits

or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the

claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be.... Thus, in

our view the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants.

Applying the aforesaid test in the instant case, the Tribunal has fallen in error while assessing the loss of dependency on the basis of future

prospect, salary, promotion and grade.

Now question is what is the just, reasonable and appropriate compensation, which could be granted in the instant case. Admittedly, the

deceased was 37 years of age and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 12,667/- at the relevant point of time.

Multiplier method is a best method for assessing the compensation. Thus, I deem it proper to apply the same method. Keeping in view Schedule

appended to Motor Vehicles Act read with age of the deceased and the fact that the income of the deceased was on higher side, multiplier 14

would be proper and appropriate multiplier in the instant case. The Apex Court in a case, entitled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia

Jean Mahajan and Others Etc. Etc., has held that when the amount of multiplicand is high, the multiplier be reduced and a lower/lesser multiplier

may be applied. The deceased would have been atleast spending 1/3rd for his personal/pocket expenses. Thus, 1/3rd has to be deducted out of

his monthly salary (l/3rd of Rs. 12,667/- =Rs.4,222/-) and rest he would have been spending for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3

(Rs.12,667- Rs. 4,222=Rs.8,445/-). Claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 8,445/- per month.

Thus, claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to Rs. 8,445 X 12 X 14 = Rs. 14,18,760/- in equal share. Claimants are also entitled to Rs.

2,000/-, Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 5,000/- under the Heads- Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate and Loss of Consortium respectively. The claimants are

also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition till its final realization. The share of minors namely claimants/respondent

Nos. 2 & 3 shall remain in fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority. The concerned Manager of the Bank shall revise their FDRs as per the

Banking Regulations. In case respondent No. 1, the mother of the minor claimants requires said amount at any time before the minors attain

majority, she is at liberty to lay a motion before the concerned Tribunal for its release and the Tribunal is at liberty to consider it and pass necessary

orders while keeping in view the interest of minors.

The impugned award is modified as indicated above and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Send down the record alongwith copy of the order.