National Insurance Company Ltd v. Amarjit Kaur And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
208-1 Date of Decision : 21.09.2022 National Insurance Co. Ltd.
....Appellant
VERSUS
Amarjit Kaur & Others ....Respondents 208-2 FAO No.816 of 1992 Amarjit Kaur and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Bahal Singh & Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Shrenik Jain, Advocate for Mr. Satish Jain, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-601-1992 and for respondent no.3 in FAO-816-1992.
Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants in FAO-816-1992 and for respondent nos.1 to 3 in FAO-601-1992.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) The above-captioned appeals, one preferred by the Insurance Company and the other filed by the claimants, are being disposed off by this common order. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants, driver and owner and the Insurance company for the sake of convenience. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 02.01.1992 awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- to the claimants on account of death of Kapur Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') in a motor vehicle accident.
-2- The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that it was averred by the claimants in the claim petition that on 19.08.1988, Kapur Singh along with Rajinder Singh was going to his village Wander Jatana from Kotkapura on a Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing registration no.PAR-8212. The scooter was being driven by Rajinder Singh on the left side of the road. At about 07.00 a.m., when both of them reached near village Wara Daraka, a truck bearing registration no.RSK-5845 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by Bahal Singh in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from the back side i.e. Kotkapura side and struck against the scooter being driven by Rajinder Singh. Both Rajinder Singh and Kapur Singh (deceased herein) received injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, Faridkot.
The accident was witnessed by Ajaib Singh. Statement of Rajinder Singh regarding the accident was recorded in the hospital at Faridkot. Kapur Singh (deceased herein) died on 20.08.1988 as a result of injuries received by him whereas Rajinder Singh died on 27.08.1988. The claim petition was contested by the respondents i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, denying the manner in which the accident took place and stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by Rajinder Singh. The Insurance Company raised the usual objections.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1.
Whether Kapur Singh died as a result of the injuries suffered by him on 19.08.1988 when scooter on which he was driving met with an
-3accident with the truck no.5845 which was being driven by respondent no.1 ?
2.
Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 ?
3.
To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled ?
4.
Whether the claim petition is time barred ?
5.
Whether the claim petition is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquisence ?
6.
Whether the claimants are the LRs of the deceased? 7.
Relief.
The Tribunal held that income of the deceased was Rs.1210/- per month and an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded to the claimants which was worked out as under :
Sr. No.
Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income of the deceased Rs.1210 Amount after deduction towards personal expenses [1210 - 410] = Rs.800 Annual income of the deceased after applying multiplier of 20 [800 x 20 x 12] = Rs.1,92,000 Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,92,000 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has contended that multiplier of 20 has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal and the same ought to have been applied as 16 as per age of the deceased, who was 34 years of age. It is further contended that the income of the deceased as been assessed on the higher side.
-4- Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that salary of the deceased has correctly been taken as Rs.1210/- per month inasmuch as the same stood duly proved by PW-2 Om Parkash. It is further the contention that no amount has been awarded to the claimants towards loss of future prospects and under the conventional heads as per the settled law.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present case the factum of the accident is not in dispute. The argument raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the income of the deceased is taken on the higher side, cannot be accepted inasmuch as it has duly been proved by PW-2 Om Parkash that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.1210/- per month. There is no evidence to the contrary that the deceased was not drawing a salary of Rs.1210/- per month. The argument raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that a wrong multiplier of 20 has been applied deserves to be accepted. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121], the multiplier ought to have been applied as 16.
Further perusal of the award reveals that no amount has been awarded to the claimants towards loss of future prospects and under the conventional heads.
Keeping in view the fact that the salary of the deceased has duly been proved as Rs.1210/- per month, I deem it appropriate to take income of the deceased as Rs.1210/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, who was 34 years of age, the multiplier has wrongly been taken as
-520 which ought to have been taken as 16. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Sarla Verma (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130], an addition of 40% is to be made towards the future prospects of the deceased and a deduction of 1/3rd is to be applied as there are three family members of the deceased. In view of the settled law, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation as well as compensation under the conventional heads. They are also entitled to 10% increase under the conventional heads as well as under the head consortium as per the law laid down in N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 642]. The modified compensation is re-worked out as under : Sr. No.
Heads Compensation Awarded Annual Income of the deceased [1210 x 12] = Rs.14520 Annual dependency of the claimants after deduction of 1/3rd [14520 - 4840] = Rs.9680 Future Prospects @ 40% [9680 + 3872] = Rs.13552 Multiplier of 16 [13552 x 16] = Rs.2,16,832 Loss of Consortium (i) Parental (ii) Spousal (i) Filial Rs.44,000 Rs.44,000 Rs.44,000 Total Rs.1,32,000 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500 Total Compensation Rs.3,81,832/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,92,000 Enhanced amount Rs.1,89,832/-
-6The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% from the date of the award till the realization of the entire amount. The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed by the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being FAO No.601 of 1992 is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants being FAO No.816 of 1992 is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 21.09.2022 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO