New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Saroj Devi

S.S. Saron, J.—CM has been filed for issuing substituted notice to the respondents.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order, in my view the necessity of issuing substituted notice would not be necessary as the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereinafter.

The respondents who are the successors-in-interest of the deceased Jasbir Singh filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Jasbir Singh.

Jasbir Singh was working as Lance Naik in the Army and on the fateful day i.e. 21.8.1994 at about 8.00 p.m., he was returning to his Unit i.e. 63 Engineer Regiment on his bicycle. At that time the offending Maruti car No. HR 31 0007 driven in a rash and negligent manner by Ashok Kumar Mehal (respondent No.7) came at a high speed. The offending Maruti vehicle struck against the bicycle of Jasbir Singh (deceased) and dragged him with the bicycle for about 30 to 35 feet. The car was coming from the side of Zirakpur and the accident occurred near Baltana on the Zirakpur- Panchkula road. Jasbir Singh as a consequence of the injury that he suffered was taken to the Command Hospital at Chandimandir where he succumbed to his injuries.

Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehal, driver of the Maruti vehicle (respondent No.7) and M/s Janki Das Mehal and sons (respondent No.8) owner of the vehicle filed their written statement to the claim petition. It was stated that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of Ashok Kumar Mehal (respondent No.7).

The New India Assurance Company Limited (appellant) in its written statement denied the accident. It was asserted that the driver of the offending car did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

In the appeal, the manner in which the accident had occurred and as to who was responsible is not disputed by the appellant New India Assurance Company Limited.

According to Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the basic pay of deceased Jasbir Singh (deceased) to be Rs.2100/- per month and on that basis held his monthly income to be Rs.4800/-. It is submitted that in fact as per the salary certificate, the basic pay of Jasbir Singh (deceased) was Rs.1080/- and his gross salary works out to about Rs.2200/- per month. Therefore, it is submitted that more compensation than was due has been awarded.

It may be noticed that the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,85,000/- to the claimants/respondents. Taking the gross monthly salary of deceased to be Rs.2200/- per month as is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants would be almost the same. The deceased Jasbir Singh was 32 years of age at the time of accident. He was on a permanent job in the Army. He had four dependents on him. Therefore, the monthly salary of Rs.2200/- is to be enhanced by 50% as held in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, wherein it has inter alia been held that where deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years, an addition of 50% of actual salary is to be added towards future prospects. The deceased had a permanent job. He was working as a Lance Naik in the Indian Army in 63 Engineer Regiment. Therefore, his monthly income comes to Rs.3300/- by enhancing it by 50%. He had four dependents. Therefore, deduction of 1/4th would be made from the monthly income towards dependency, which works out to Rs.2475/- per month or say Rs.2500 per month. The yearly income on this basis works out to Rs.30,000/-. A multiplier of 16 is to be applied in terms of the judgment in Sarla Verma�s case (Supra). Therefore, this works out to Rs.4,80,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs.1 lac is to be awarded towards loss of consortium as held in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, . Besides, Rs.25,000/- is to be awarded towards funeral expenses as held in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, and this works out to Rs.6,05,000/-.

In the present case, a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- has been awarded. Therefore, in the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and same is, accordingly, dismissed.