Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajni & ORS
!"# $#%&'&() *
+#,&#("!-('.,!(%#/0!(12&/&"#$ 00#--!("
3#,'.'
!4(&!($"+#,'
#'0($#("' )5 2 6 7
!
"
#$% &
7 This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the award, dated 10.01.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, only on the ground that amount of compensation awarded to respondents No.1 to 4-claimants on account of death of Chand @ Sunny, was not as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in
8 9&3&-
*, therefore, needs correction.
2.
In the facts of the case, the Tribunal awarded compensation to respondents No.1 to 4-claimants, being legal heirs of deceased, on account of death of Chand @ Sunny in a motor accident on
20.08.2015. He was held to be 26 years of age, earning Rs.9000/- per month. The following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal: Date of Accident 20.08.2015 Age of the deceased Chand @ Sunny 26 years Claimants Rajni and others (4) Sr. No. Heads of Claim Tribunal Amount 1.
Annual Income Rs.9,000 X 12 = 1,08,000/- 2.
50% Future Prospect Rs.54,000/- 3.
Total income of deceased Rs.1,62,000/- 4.
Personal and living expenses (1/4) Rs.40,500/- 5.
Income after deduction of personal and living expenses Rs.1,21,500/- 6.
Multiplier 17 (Seventeen) 7.
Amount of compensation Rs.1,21,500/- X 17 = Rs.20,65,500/- 8.
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- 9.
Loss of care and guidance for minor children Rs.1,00,000/- 10.
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Grand Total Rs.22,90,500/- 3.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellantInsurance Company that claimants have been wrongly awarded compensation under the heads, future prospects at the rate of 50%, loss of care and guidance of minor children and funeral expenses. The amount under these heads needs to be decreased as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
4.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the amount paid to the claimants on account of loss of consortium needs to be enhanced as per law, and compensation under other conventional heads also needs to be paid to the claimants as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
5.
There is no dispute that the compensation payable has to be assessed in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), which the Tribunal has failed to do. Therefore, the award needs to be modified by awarding compensation as per law. T ' & $
( )&
!***+,
****+,
!***+,( -
& *.( ( $(
+
#& *. # /# *.
0!**+,
***+,
0!**+,( 1 +
# &( ' 2 &&( -& # 30( $ # , (+4 & 2 # #( *. & !*. # (
( -
& &( ($ & 5 $ + # )
7.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, respondents No.1 to 4/claimants are held to the following revised amount of compensation: 6, #!$ /.("' (2 6***
2 9000 X 12 = 1,08,000
89 *.
43,200 - $ 1,51,200 !
# )9
+ 37,800 (1,51,200-37,800 = 1,13,400)
:
5:
(1,13,400 X 17) 19,27,800
;
44,000 X 4 = 1,76,000 <
;8 =) 16,500
;= 16,500
"!-%/0#('!"&( 21,36,800 < - # &( -& * *
3* 5
+
' :;:
<=# 6. $
> # & ( (
&(-&
( &( +2 (&( # (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 12.09.2022 JUDGE ? 4$+ "+ ? & "+