Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Ranjeet Kumar And Others

This is an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company against the award dated 29th March, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim File No.45/2011 titled Ranjeet Kumar and others v. Oriental Insurance company Ltd.

On the fateful day of 3rd of November, 2010, the deceased Sunita Devi was travelling in the offending vehicle (bus) bearing Registration No.JK02P-7717 vehicle which was going from Jammu to Kishtwar. On reaching Prem Nagar, the offending vehicle hit parapet thereby causing injuries to the passengers including the deceased. The deceased was shifted to Govt. Medical College, Jammu where she succumbed to the injuries received by her in the accident. The accident is stated to have taken place due to rash, negligent and careless driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, who also died on spot. The deceased left behind her husband, two minor sons and one daughter. A claim has been preferred by the husband and minor children of the deceased before the Tribunal claiming Rs.14,80,000/-as compensation under different heads.

The claim petition was contested by the Appellant-insurance Company by filing its objections. However, respondent No.5 (owner of the offending vehicle) was proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"I. Whether an accident took place on 03.11.2010 at Prem nagar (Jammu-Kishtwar NHW) by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No.JK02P-7717 by its driver Kuldeep Singh, as result of which deceased Sunita Devi received fatal injuries? (OPP)

II. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are

entitled to the compensation if so to what amount and from whom? (OPP)

III. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance; if so to what effect? (OPR-1)

IV. Relief? (O.P.Parties)."

The Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 entitled to the compensation in the following manner:-

Loss of dependence : Rs.12,96,000/-

Funeral Expenses : Rs.25,000/-

Loss of Estate : Rs.5 ,000/-

Loss of consortium : Rs.1,00,000/-

Total Rs.14,26,000/-

The claimants have also been held entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum.

The primary ground raised by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award of the Tribunal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, inasmuch as, the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- per month is without any basis. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the alleged income of the deceased.

Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court including Ram Kumar Awasthi and anr. v. Vimla Rani Chaurasiya and another; 2014 ACJ 2278, Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others; 2015 (1) Supreme 566 and a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ranveer Singh and others v. Vishan Singh and others; 2018 ACJ 1408, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the income of the deceased, who was a household lady should have been assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the future prospects are not applicable in the case of a household lady. Additionally, it is urged that the amounts granted under the conventional heads are not in tune with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jagdish v. Mohan and others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 to submit that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would also extend to self employed individuals.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side. There is no evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased. The deceased, as per the claimants, at the time of accident was doing the job of tailoring in addition to managing the household work. Her income for the purposes of working out compensation can at best be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, as per the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is applicable in the instant case as the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years. Thus, the Tribunal was not right in adding 50% towards future prospects. The husband cannot be held as dependent upon his wife. Therefore, since the dependents left behind by the deceased are three, 1/3rd should be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the decease i.e. 35 years, 16 is the multiplier to be adopted for calculation of the compensation Adding 40% towards the future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.7000/- Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs.4667/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4667 x 12 x 16 = Rs.8,96,064/-. In terms of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.1 on account of loss of spousal consortium and Rs.1,20,000/- to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on account of loss of parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each.

The award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 are held entitled to the following amount of compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal as per the terms and conditions laid down in the award of the Tribunal.

Loss of dependency = Rs.8,96,064.00

Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000.00

Loss of spousal consortium to respondent No.1 = Rs.40,000.00

Loss of parental consortium

To respondent Nos. 2 to 4 @ Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000.00

Total Rs.10,71,064.00

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.