Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Randhir Kaur and others

,

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 11.03.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter",

referred to as 'the Tribunal').,

The claimants and the insurer of the offending vehicle being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed the appeal and,

cross-objections.,

The bare facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that on 28.02.2012, Sukhwinder Singh, aged 53 years, was coming back home on his scooter",

bearing registration No.PB-23L-8635. On reaching near village Sawara, the scooter was struck by rashly and negligently driven car bearing",

registration No.PB-12K-4977. As a result of the impact, Sukhwinder Singh fell down on the road and suffered injuries and died at the spot.",

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was filed by legal heirs of the deceased.",

The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased was working as a driver in,

Maintenance Department of PWD. His monthly salary was assessed as Rs.34,145/- and after deducting income tax @ Rs.1222/- per month, the net",

salary was taken as Rs.32,923/-. I/3rd deduction for self expenses was made and multiplier of 11 was applied. The Tribunal awarded a sum of",

Rs.29,17,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs.20,000/- under the conventional heads.",

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the deceased was survived by widow and two major sons, in such circumstances, 1/3rd",

deduction should not be made. He further argued that since the deceased was to retire at the age of 60, a split multiplier should have been adopted by",

the Tribunal.,

Learned counsel for the claimants argued that no future prospects have been added and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on,

the lower side.,

The contention raised by learned counsel for the insurer cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to rebut that the major sons were dependant,

upon the deceased. 1/3rd deduction has been made by the,

Tribunal in consonance with the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121.",

There was no discussion by the Tribunal, with regard to the issue of split multiplier. It appears that this issue was not raised before the Tribunal. Be",

that as it may in the enhancement appeal it is not appropriate to adopt the split multiplier. The reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex,

Court, in Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and Others Vs. Administrative Officer and Another 2011 (4) SCC 689, and it was held as under:-",

“In view of this evidence the Tribunal should have considered the prospect of future income while computing compensation but the Tribunal has,

not done that. In the appeal, which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of",

compensation, granted by the Tribunal reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of",

split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefore.,

The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age,

of FAO No.3741 of 2013 (O&M) -4-the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the II Column in the II",

Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate",

why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6.†(emphasis supplied) In the above mentioned decision the Apex Court specifically stated that,

the High Court erred in introducing split multiplier and departing from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason. In the present,

case also I have no occasion at this stage to substitute my own reasoning for departing from well settled law of applying multiplier as has been held by,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra).,

Further, this Court in FAO No. 4615 of 2013 'Giano Devi and Others Vs. Hariom and Others', decided on 18.10.2016 following the decision of the",

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri, K.R. Madhusudhan's case (supra) has held as under:-",

“The learned Tribunal has applied the split multiplier. The learned Tribunal has mentioned that since the deceased was going to retire beyond the,

age of 58 years i.e. the age of superannuation, so the actual loss of dependency has only been multiplied for a period of six years. This approach of",

the learned Tribunal is erroneous in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in case Sri, K.R. Madhusudhan and Others Vs.",

Administrative Officer and Another (supra). So, the multiplier of 9 shall be applicable. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,83,550/-â€.",

Further, this Court in FAO No. 5452 of 2012, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Singh and Others, decided on 02.08.2013",

following the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others (supra) and case of Sri K.R. Madhusudhan had held as under:-,

“Taking the point of split multiplier, firstly it has to be seen that the deceased was to retire within a period of two years and definitely his salary",

would have been converted into a pension, which would have been about ½ of the same. However, the multiplier system does not call for taking of",

different annual dependencies of two different periods. The judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) makes no distinction in this regard.â€​,

Further this Court in FAO No. 1837 of 2015 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parveen and Others decided on 19.03.2015 following the,

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in “Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and anotherâ€, 2013(9) SCC 65 and the decision of the",

Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma's and Others case (supra) had not applied the split multiplier.,

Keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the consistent view taken by this Court, I do not find any reason to apply split multiplier",

in the present case.,

At this stage it would be fair to mention that the counsel for the Insurance Companies relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in,

Puttamma and Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another 2013 (15) SCC 45.,

From a perusal of the said decision it would be clear that rather it is in support of the view taken by this Court that the split multiplier should not be,

applied in the present case.,

A perusal of paras 32 and 34 of the said judgment are reproduced for the ready reference.,

32 “For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were,

Monthly income,"Rs.32,923/-

15% future prospects,Rs.4939/-

Total income,"Rs.37,862/-

1/3rd deduction for self

expenses","Rs.12,621/-

Dependency,"Rs. 25,241/-

Applying multiplier of 11,"Rs.33,31,812/-

Funeral expenses,"Rs.15,000/-

Loss of estate,"Rs.15,000/-

Loss of consortium,"Rs.40,000/-

Total,"Rs.34,01,812/-