AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J
This is an appeal under Section 173 r/w. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dated 08.05.2014 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Narmada at Rajpipla (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 82 of 2012 (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.10,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs, against claim of Rs.15 lakh of the original claimants, towards the death of the deceased, holding the opponents therein jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Accordingly, the appellant – New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. - original opponent No. 3 has preferred this appeal.
Since the facts of the accident are not in dispute, the Court deems it proper not to discuss the same in detail. Least is to say that as per the case of the claimants, in an accident occurred on 09.04.2012, the deceased who was travelling in the offending truck, which, due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 – driver, flipped into a ravine, resulting into grievous injuries sustained by the deceased and eventually, the deceased succumbed to the injuries for which, the original claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.15 lakh.
Heard, learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavati for learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant – insurance company and learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim for learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the original claimants. Though served, nobody appears for the respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. Since, liability was not in dispute, the Court proceeded with the matter.
The learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has vehemently submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is on a higher side. She submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month although no evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased was there on record. She further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, MANU/SC/0606/2009, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/5th as deducted by the Tribunal. Moreover, she submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection to the children and Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of love, affection and estate to the parents. The learned advocate for the insurance company also sought to argue that Rs.25,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is also on higher side.
4.1 Thus, making above submissions, the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has urged to reduce the amount of compensation suitably and thereby, to allow this appeal.
Per contra, while opposing the present appeal, the learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants submitted that against the claim of Rs.15 lakh, the Tribunal has awarded aforesaid amount under different heads for the death of deceased who was aged 35 years only at the time of accident and accordingly, this appeal being bereft of any merits, deserves to be dismissed.
Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the impugned judgment and award so also the material available on record vis-a-vis the decision relied upon, it appears that for the death of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,39,000/- under different heads. So far as the facts of the accident as well as the income of the deceased are concerned, there is no dispute. However, the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has disputed the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, as taken by the learned Tribunal. Further, it has been submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th amount towards expenses of the deceased while counting the dependency benefits and it ought to have been 1/4th as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). The appellant has also challenged the award under the head of non-pecuniary damages. In this regard, if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is referred to, it can be summarized as under:
Head
Amt. (Rs.)
Future prospective income
8,64,000/-
Loss of love and affection to children
1,00,000/-
Loss of love, affection and estate to parents
50,000/-
Funeral Expenses
25,000/-
Total
10,39,000/-
6.1 Considering the award, more particularly, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under different heads, it appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- against claim of Rs.7,500/- considering the decision of the Apex Court vis-a-vis the age of the deceased. Now, so far as the future prospective income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects on income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. In this regard, if the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, MANU/SC/1366/2017, is referred to, for self employed/fixed salaried persons in the age group up to 40 years, 40% rise is required to be adopted. Further, the Court has considered the decision of the Apex Court in Somwati and Others (supra), wherein, the Court, relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Others, MANU/SC/0500/ 2020, has accepted the formula of Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium and Filial Consortium, to be paid @ Rs.40,000/- each and loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- each, with rise at the rate 10% every three years. The Court, in the said decision, however, did not accept award of compensation under the head of Loss of Love and Affection and comprehended the same under the head of Loss of Consortium. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of Loss of love, affection, and estate respectively to the children and parents of the deceased. Further, considering the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), for the age group of 31-35, multiplier of 16 is held to be adopted and thus, considering the age of the deceased in the case on hand, which was 35 years at the relevant time, the multiplier of 16 was required to be adopted instead of 15 as adopted by the Tribunal.
6.2 So far as the funeral expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, however, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of funeral expense is required to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. However, as per the said decision, the claimants are entitled to rise at the rate 10% every three years. Accordingly, adding 10% to Rs.15,000/-, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.16,500/-towards funeral expenses. Further, considering the dependents, which are four in number, 1/4th amount was required to be deducted towards the expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/5th as deducted by the Tribunal.
6.3 In view of the above settled legal position vis-a-vis considering the award of the Tribunal as well as the amount required to be awarded, as aforesaid, in the considered opinion of the Court, no interference is called for in this appeal filed at the instance of the insurance company.
The appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly. R&P, if received, be returned forthwith.