Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Leela Devi & Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J.",,

The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award",,

pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., upon, MACP No. 6/2 of 2016, whereunder, compensation amount",,

comprised, in, a sum of Rs.11,37,044/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from, the date of petition till realization",,

thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer.",,

Deceased Joginder Pal, as, unfolded by the apt postmortem report, borne in PW1/A, met his demise, in sequel, to, a road side accident. The",,

claimants are his dependents/successors-in-interest. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, does not contest, the validity, of, the apt affirmative",,

findings, rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, the apposite issue appertaining, to, the demise of one Joginder Pal, rather being a sequel of rash and",,

negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, nor he contests the fastening, of, the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer,",,

of, the offending vehicle. However, the counsel, for the insurer has with much vigour, made a serious attempt, to rip apart the validity, of, computation",,

made by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the per mensem slarary of the deceased, and, the apt computation appertaining therewith, is, comprised in a",,

sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem.",,

The learned counsel for the insurer, has, for carrying forth his espousal, drawn, the attention of this Court, to, the testification of PW-4, the employer",,

of deceased Joginder Pal. PW-4, during the course of his recording, his testification, has, tendered into evidence Ex.PW4/B, exhibit whereof",,

comprises the apt salary certificate of deceased Joginder Pal, and, therein recitals occur, qua deceased rendering employment with him, from,",,

13.09.2015 to 1.09.2015, (a) and his being paid salary comprised in a sum of Rs.14,000/- for the month of July, 2015. However, even though, the",,

salary certificate, at the time of, its, adduction of evidence, was without any demur, by the counsel for the insurer rather permitted to be exhibited, (b)",,

and, per se thereupon, the afore recitals, borne therein though acquire an aura of authenticity. However, the learned counsel for the insurer, has",,

contended (c) that with PW- 4, during, the course of his thereat being subjected to cross-examination, his, qua the apt attendance register, borne in",,

EX.PW4/C, rather making acquiescings to a suggestion put thereat, qua the attendance register not carrying against the name, of the employees",,

concerned, their respective signatures, (d) hence, both Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C, losing their respective probative vigour.",,

However, the aforesaid contention, cannot be accepted, (e) as in the latter part of his cross-examination, PW-4, has volunteered that his liquidating",,

salary to the deceased, through, cheques and a compatible therewith entry being made, in, the apt pass book. Even when, the afore testification rather",,

stands rendered by PW-4, yet the learned counsel for the insurer, for, rather ripping apart veracity thereof, omitted to make any appropriate motion,",,

for eliciting from the bank, whereat, PW-4 was maintaining his account(s), the records appertaining therewith, nor he made endeavours for eliciting",,

the apt pass book, (f) whereas, the elicitations of the aforesaid record, rather constituted the best evidence, for belying the aforesaid echoings, made",,

by PW-4. The effects, of, afore omissions, are adversarial, vis-a-vis, the insurer, and, the further concomitant sequel thereof, is that, the notional",,

income, drawn by the learned tribunal, on anvil of Ex.PW4/A, and, comprised in a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem, rather being both appropriate and",,

tenable, and, warranting no interference.",,

Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has canvassed with much vigour before this Court, that, the meteing of hikes",,

constituted, in, 15%, upon, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, rather being ridden, with, a gross fallacy, (i) and when he anchors, the aforesaid submission, upon, the",,

apt mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as, borne in the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, a case titled as National Insurance Co.",,

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, given, it rather not vindicating, any meteing, of, hikes towards future incremental",,

prospects, vis- a-vis, any self employed deceased being aged more than 50 years or when he is engaged, in a non governmental organization or entity,",,

(ii) whereas, with the deceased, being self employed or being aged more than 50 years, it being impermissible, to mete 15% hikes towards, future",,

incremental prospects. However, the aforesaid submission, rather falters, given, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) rather",,

validating the meteing of hikes, vis-a-vis, future incremental prospects, even qua a self-employed deceased being aged more than 50 years, as, the",,

deceased hereat evidently, is. The relevant paragraphs whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-",,

“57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation†and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness,",,

reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be,,

perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual,,

case. The conception of “just compensation†has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of",,

equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an",,

apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the",,

tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensationâ€. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record",,

as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied.,,

The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and,,

income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in",,

pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made,,

for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance,",,

a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this",,

Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are,,

concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of",,

“standardizationâ€​ so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.,,

The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has,,

carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se,",,

allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.,,

59.Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale",,

not to apply the said principle to the self- employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death,,

and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The,,

determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of,,

just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual,,

increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to",,

the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between,,

the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on,,

the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that,,

apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance.,,

1.,Loss of dependency come,"Rs.      Â

 10,12,044/-

2.,Loss of Consortium to petitioner No.1,"Rs. 40,000/-

3.,Funeral charge,"Rs. 15,000/-

,Total,"Rs.   10,67,044/-