Sudesh Kumari vs Om Parkash

Bhawani Singh, Chief Justice

Admit: Notice accepted by Shri Kanwal chopra on behalf of respondents1 and 2 and Shri Suneel Malhotra for respondent 3.

Heard finally

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Single Judge in CIMA No. 104/ 1992 dated April 28, 1995.

Claim petition was filed by widow for herself and on behalf of four minor sons of deceased Lok Nath Sharma, who died in road accident on

11.03.1979 when his Scooter No. 6280JKP was hit by Bus registration No. JKP3219.

Allegation is that the accident took place due to negligence of driver Virender Singh of the Vehicle. Compensation of Eight Lac has been claimed

on account of death of deceased, who, at the relevant time, was employed as Information Assistant in the State Information Department against

monthly salary of Rs 511/. In addition, he was getting Rs. 540/ per month by working for Local Newspapers. Deceased was 39 year old at the

time of accident and would have worked up to the age of 65 years and superannuated with full pension. Driver and Owner of the Bus have

admitted the accident and involvement of deceased in this accident. They have denied the allegation of negligence on their part and have attributed

the same to the deceased whose Scooter got knocked while it was being driven. Insurance Company has admitted that the Bus was ensured with

it but claims that its liability was limited up to

Rs. 50.000/. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether on 11.03.1979 respondent 2 while in the employment of respondent 1 was rashly and negligently driving vehicle No.3219JKP at the

Medical College Jammu and as a result thereof the Vehicle struck against the Scooter driving by Lok Nath Sharma which eventually led to his

death?

Whether the Vehicle was insured with respondent 3 under policy no. 82/6300702/ 78, if so are the respondents 1 and 2 entitled to

indemnification?

Whether the accident had occurred due to the sheer negligence of the deceased. If so what is its effect?

To what amount of compensation are the Petitioners entitled to and from whom and in what proportion?

After the trail, all the issues were decided against the opposite side and compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,000/ with 12% interest has been

awarded. Liability has been apportioned to the extent that Insurance Company has been ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/ while the Owner of vehicle

Rs 22,000/ with interest.

Claimants challenged this award through CIMA No. 104/1992 before Single Judge of this court, who, vide decision of April 28, 1995 allowed

the same and directed payment of Rs. 86,400/ by the Insurance Company. No appeal against this award has been filed by the Insurance

Company.

Not satisfied with two decisions discussed above, the Claimants have preferred this appeal claiming enhancement of amount of compensation.

Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the matter examined. So far as issues 1 to 3 are concerned, there is no dispute about the

accident taking place and involvement of deceased in it. It has also been found that the accident took place due to negligence of the Bus driver and

that the Vehicle was Covered by insurance policy at the relevant time. Consequently these findings are confirmed and we proceed to discuss

issue~4 relating to the amount of compensation awarded hitherto by the Tribunal and enhanced by the Single Judge of this Court.

Shri S.C.Sharma contented that compensation awarded in this case is too meager and deserves to be enhanced. Learned Counsel explains that

deceased was earning Rs. 511/ from service at the time and Rs. 540/ from extra work he was doing in addition to the job. He was quite young and

was likely to earn more in future. Therefore, on these factors his average income has to be taken into consideration in the present case which

comes to Rs. 2000/ per month. For Insurance Company, Shri Suneel Malhotra contended that multiplier of sixteen is on the higher side and in case

this Court intends to disturb it, it should be between 10 to 12 and not the one allowed by the tribunal and being canvassed by the Appellate court.

It was also contended that the compensation has to be assessed on the position existing in 1979 when the accident took place and not what the

deceased was to gain and earn in future because such factors are taken into consideration in the multiplier method of assessment of compensation.

We have considered the respective submission of learned counsel for the parties. In our considered opinion, we find the decision by Single

Judge deserves modification to some extent. As per evidence available on record, the deceased was earning Rs. 511/ from salary and Rs. 540/

from other sources, learned Counsel for respondents contends that this income can not be taken into consideration, we are not impressed by this

submission since this plea stands repealed by the Single Judge and we do not want to disturb his finding since it is based on evidence nor there is

any evidence produced by the respondents pointing out that the deceased was not earning this income. This way, the total income of deceased was

Rs 1051/, There are six Units in the family. One Unit of Rs 175 A will go to the deceased leaving behind Rs 875/ to the family. It is to be multiplied

by Twelve, taking the datum figure to Rs 10,500/ per annum. Now the Question arises as to the application of correct multiplier in this case.

Contentions of respective sides have been taken into considerations in the preceding part of the Judgment. Taking into consideration the age of the

deceased, the reasonable multiplier in this case should be twelve. Therefore, total compensation awardable in this case works out to Rs 1,26,000/.

To this, would be added the conventional amount of Rs. 4,000/ taking the total amount to Rs. 1,30,000/

Consequently, this appeal is allowed to the extent aforesaid and National Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 1,30,000A with interest at

the rate of 6% from August 30,1979 till the date of payment, however, amount paid up to this date would be deducted from the amount of

compensation awarded in this case. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in the Registry of this Court within

eight weeks. On deposit, the amount be released to the claimants through counsel.

Cost on parties.