Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Urmilla And Ors

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The award dated 16.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 87 of 2012, has been assailed by the insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-43-A-0774 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle').

The widow, three minor children and mother of the deceased have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 5 and driver and owner of the offending vehicle have been arrayed as respondents No.6 and 7 in the appeal.

The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that on 14.12.2011, Ravi Parkash alongwith Satish was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-43-7653. On their way they were hit by the offending vehicle, which was being driven by Ramphul. As a result of the impact, Ravi Parkash sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Artemis Hospital, Gurgaon where he died during the treatment. FIR No. 259, dated 15.12.2011 was registered at Police Station Kosli.

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') was filed. The Tribunal after considering the facts and on appreciating the evidence adduced, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,77,300/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- for loss of care and guidance for minor child and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium.

In the claim petition, it was pleaded that the deceased was 30 years old, was Carpenter by profession and was earning Rs.7500/- per month. But the claimants failed to substantiate the monthly earning of the deceased. Relying upon the minimum wages prevalent in the State, the Tribunal assessed the monthly earning of the deceased as Rs.5250/-; 1/4th deduction for self-expenses were made; multiplier of 16 was applied and 50% future prospects were awarded.

Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the monthly earning of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side, as the claimants failed to prove the occupation and monthly earning of the deceased. He further contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding 50% future prospects instead of 40%. His grievance is that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on higher side.

Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the deceased was a Carpenter by profession and was 31 years old, survived by five dependants, the Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased.

It was pleaded by the claimants that deceased was a Carpenter. There was nothing on record to rebut the same, ALBEIT, claimants failed to prove monthly earning of the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased by relying upon the minimum wages prevalent in the State. In the cases where the claimants failed to prove the occupation and monthly earning of the deceased, the safest yardstick would be to rely upon the minimum wages prevalent in the State at the time of accident. It does not mean that the Court has to strictly restrict itself to the minimum wages only, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, which are to be considered for assessing the monthly earning of the deceased.

Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was 31 years old and was a Carpenter by profession and also the fact that he was survived by five dependants including three minor children, the monthly earning assessed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to awarding 40% future prospects and the amounts under the conventional heads deserve acceptance.

Having due regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2018 (2) PLR 480; 40% future prospects are awarded, as the deceased was below 40 years and falls in the category of self employed having fixed wages.

In consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), claimants are also entitled to Rs.15000/- each for funeral expenses and for loss of estate. Further an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the widow for loss of consortium. No amount is awarded for loss of care and guidance to the minor child.

In view of afore-said discussion, the compensation is re-calculated as under:

Head

Compensation awarded

(i)

Income

Rs. 5250/- per month

(ii)

Future prospects at 40%

Rs. 2100/- per month

(iii)

Total Income

Rs. 7350/- per month

(iv)

Deduction of personal expenses

Rs. 1837/- (i.e. 1/4th of total income)

(v)

Multiplier

16 (as per age of deceased)

(vi)

Loss of income

5513x12x16= Rs.10,58,496/-

(vii)

Funeral expenses

Rs.15,000/-

(viii)

Loss of estate

Rs.15,000/-

(ix)

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 40,000/-

(x)

Medical expenses

Rs. 82,000/- (already awarded by the Tribunal)

Total Compensation awarded

Rs.12,10,496/-

The award dated 16.10.2014 passed in MACT case No. 87 of 2012 is modified to the extent that amount of Rs.13,77,300/- awarded by the Tribunal is