Renu Devi & Others vs Harish Singh & Another

,,

Lok Pal Singh, J",,

This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment/award dated 06.08.2011, passed by the",,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Pithoragarh, in M.A.C. case no. 50 of 2009, Smt. Renu Devi and others Vs Harish Singh and",,

another, whereby said Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- to the claimants to be paid by insurance company along with interest at",,

the rate of 6% per annum.,,

2) Brief facts of the case, are that on 18.04.2009, at 04:50 P.M., when Narendra Singh was travelling in Alto car bearing registration no. UK 05 /",,

6856 from Pithoragarh to Dungatoli and reached near D.A.R.L. guest house on Vin-Panda motor road, the said vehicle met with an accident due to",,

rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. The driver of the vehicle and Narendra Singh died in said accident. The deceased was aged 28,,

years at the time of accident. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working on the post of Lance Naik in the Indian Army and used,,

to earn Rs.14,500/- per month. The claimants (wife, minor son and parents of the deceased) sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 61,58,000/-Owner",,

of the offending vehicle and National Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom the offending vehicle was insured, were made party to the claim petition.",,

3) On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues:",,

i) Whether the Alto Car bearing registration no. UK 05 / 6856, in which deceased Narendra Singh was travelling as a passenger, met with an accident",,

on 18.04.2009, at 04:30 P.M., on Panda motor road near D.A.R.L. Guest House due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver, as a result",,

of which he died on the spot after sustaining grievous injuries on his head and body? If yes, its effect?",,

ii) Whether the offending vehicle was being driver in violation of the insurance policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act? If yes, its effect?",,

iii) Whether the driver on the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective license at the time of accident?,,

iv) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom?,,

4) Smt. Renu Devi, widow of the deceased, examined herself as PW1 and Dr. Narendra Sharma was examined as PW2. In the form of documentary",,

evidence, FIR, copy of Parivaar Registar, death certificate, copy of postmortem report, Army identity card, family pension form were produced as",,

evidence. O.P. no. 1 / owner produced registration certificate of the vehicle and insurance cover note. O.P. no. 2 / insurance company did not adduce,,

any oral or documentary evidence.,,

5) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and on perusal of the record decided issue nos. (i) in favour of the claimants and,,

against the respondents. Issues no. (ii) and (iii) were decided together holding that the vehicle was insured with the O.P. no. 2 insurance co.. Both the,,

issues were decided against the insurance co. and in favour of O.P. no. 1. Issue no. (iv) was decided in favour of the claimants and a compensation to,,

the tune of Rs. 4,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon was granted to them to be paid by the insurance company from the",,

date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Aggrieved by the insufficiency of compensation thus awarded, appellants / claimants have preferred",,

present appeal.,,

6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.,,

7) Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in calculating the notional income of deceased at,,

Rs.36,000/- per annum and in totally ignoring the fact that the deceased was a Lance Naik in the Indian Army. Perusal of the last pay drawn",,

certificate of the deceased issued by the Abhilekh Karyalaya (Records) of The Mech. Infantry Regiment would reveal that at the time of death,,

deceased was getting salary of Rs.15,300/- per month. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal had assessed the",,

income of the deceased presuming him as unemployed and meager compensation has been awarded to the claimants.,,

8) Learned counsel for the appellants would further urge that the multiplier has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal on the lower side while passing,,

the award, as such, the compensation awarded is insufficient.",,

9) As regards the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier has been applied on the lower side while awarding the,,

compensation, I do not find force in this argument. It is settled proposition of law that multiplier method is an appropriate method, a departure from",,

which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptionally. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs,,

Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 has specifically held that the choice of multiplier should be determined by the age of the,,

deceased. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble",,

Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 case.,,

10) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company would urge that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and,,

evidence of the case after perusing the relevant documents brought on record and has rightly passed the award by granting compensation to the tune,,

of Rs.4,74,000/- in favour of the claimants.",,

11) This is an appeal for enhancement filed by the appellants / claimants. As the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on other issues have not,,

been put to challenge by the respondents, thus the findings in regard to the rash and negligent driving and possession of valid & effective driving",,

license as well as valid insurance policy are hereby affirmed.,,

12) Now this Court has to consider as to how much compensation the appellants are entitled on account of death of Narendra Singh.,,

13) During the course of hearing of present appeal misc. application was filed by the applicants for taking on record the evidence with regard to the,,

last pay drawn by the deceased. Said application was allowed vide order dated 08.09.2017 holding that since the learned Tribunal has committed,,

illegality in non-permitting the claimants to produce the evidence during the pendency of claim petition, as such, for determination of just and proper",,

compensation, last pay drawn certificate should be taken on record as evidence. Had the last pay drawn certificate of the deceased was taken into",,

consideration by the learned Tribunal, the awarded compensation would be much higher.",,

14) Having gone through the appeal filed by the claimants / appellants, this Court is of the view that Narendra Singh at the time of his death was aged",,

28 years and was working as Lance Naik in the Indian Army, on permanent job. Last pay drawn certificate of late Narendra Singh, which is on",,

record, would reveal that on 18.04.2009 (on the date of accident) the deceased was getting basic pay of Rs. 7,970/- + Dearness allowance of",,

Rs.2,721/- + Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-, Classification Pay of Rs.200/- and MS pay of Rs.2,000/-, totalling to Rs. 15,300/- as monthly income. Thus, in",,

Sl. No.,Head,"Calculation

(amount in Rupees)

1.,"Loss of dependency

(Rs.1,37,700 x 17 + 50% future

prospect)","35,11,350

2.,Loss of estate,"15,000

3.,Loss of consortium,"40,000

4.,Funeral expenses,"15,000

5.,Total,"35,81,350