Smt. Shankranti Devi @ Sukranti Devi & Others vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others

Both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 30.10.2015 rendered by the learned Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima, hence, are being adjudicated herein below together.

Having heard the learned counsels of both the parties, it transpires that the accident occurred on 29.6.2014 at 06:00 PM in the territorial jurisdiction of

police station Nanak Matta when deceased Radhe Shyam, a Pradeshik Raksha Dal (PRD) employee, having parked his motor cycle, was going to make water, at the same time a car UK06W 1880 dashed making him seriously injured. He died at the spot.

An F.I.R. was lodged by one Mr. Manish Singh in the police station. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 30.6.2014 at Khatima Community Health Centre. Since, the car was insured with the appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. hence, his dependants wife including four children filed a claim petition no. 339/2014 before the learned Tribunal claiming the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs, whereagainst learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,70,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy thousand only) along with 7.5 % simple annual interest from the date of institution of the present petition. The quantum of the award and the rate of interest have been challenged by the Insurance Company while another appeal 87/2016 has been presented by the dependants for the enhancement of the award.

It has been argued by the learned counsel of the Insurance Company that as per Family Register, paper no. 12 ga produced by the petitioner themselves, the date of birth of the deceased was 1963. This way on the date of accident, he had attained the age of 51 years. The Tribunal has committed error by accepting the age of the deceased 45 years on the basis of what was disclosed in the petition as well as in the post-mortem.

I accept this argument because the date of birth which finds place in the Parivar Register is credible than the age disclosed orally by the claimants on the legal advice

as well as the age disclosed at the time of autopsy which is just an estimation of the persons present at the occasion. If we accept the age of 51 years then as per Sarla Verma case the appropriate multiplier would have been of 11 instead of 14. So far as the base income of the deceased is concerned, although he was a PRD employee so he was not in a permanent job but, since the PW3-the Superintendent of the school Khatima where the deceased was working had deposed that the deceased Shri Radhe Shyam was working as Cook in the hostel and his average working days were 29-30 days for last four years. He used to get Rs. 250/- honorarium per day for the services he used to render.

At the same time, I think that the Tribunal committed an error by deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses, it should have been 1/3rd instead.

Therefore, the calculation of the compensation comes as under:

Annual income 75,000/- X 12 = 90,000/-

Deduction towards the personal expenses = 30,000/-

After deduction towards personal expenses it comes to = 60,000/-

Applying the appropriate multiplier 11, it comes to = (60,000 X 11)

6,60,000/-

The amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- = towards the consortium and the funeral expenses are not disturbed, then it comes to

7,85,000/-

On the score of interest, I feel, it should further be reduced from 7.5% to 6%. Ordered accordingly.

The whole amount calculated thus along with the interest shall be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company to the claimants without making any TDR as has been directed by the Tribunal.

In view of what has been set forth above, the AO No. 63/2016 is partly allowed and the award is modified as afore mentioned while I find there is no propriety to enhance the award in the light of facts and circumstances as stated above. AO No. 87/2016 is hereby dismissed.

Rs. 25,000/- compulsory statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the High Court shall be remitted back to the Tribunal.

LCR be sent back.