Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 155 (DEL)

KANAK LATA v. RANJIT SINGH

2000-02-10

VIJENDER JAIN, VUENDER JAIN

body2000
Vijender Jain, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the widow of deceased and minor daughter filed the present appeal against the respondents. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was the driver of the vehicle and respondent No. 2 was the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No. 3 is Insurance Company. Inspite of various opportunities, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has contented that the Tribunal did not lake into consideration that the deceased was 35 years old at the tune of his death. He was serving in Indian Air Force and was getting Rs. 1250. 00 p. m. and after his successful service in the Indian Force, he was working as a Liaison Officer of Kingston Electronics and he was getting Rs. 1,400. 00 p. m. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has also placed on reliance on PW8/1 and has contended that the Tribunal has tost sigh of the fact that after six months of the appointment of the deceased with Kingston Electronics, it was stated in Public Witness 8/1 which was the letter of appointment that the salary of the deceased would be increased after six months. What has been contended before me that the future promotions and other emoluments which would have been received by the deceased has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It has also been contended that 1/3rd allowance has been deducted from the total income of the deceased. According to counsel for the appellant this is on the higher side and the appellant would not have spent that much of amount on himself. ( 4 ) ANOTHER contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order awarding an amount of Rs. 7,000. 00 to be paid by the owner was also contrary to law as a separate premium was charged by the Insurance Company covering public risk. ( 5 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. Let me first deal with the multiplier as fixed hy the Tribunal. Tribunal has taken into consideration the multiplier of fourteen while awarding compensation. In view of the fact that the deceased was employed with Kingston Electronics as Liaison Officer after his service with the Indian Air Force on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,400. 00 per month (Ex. Let me first deal with the multiplier as fixed hy the Tribunal. Tribunal has taken into consideration the multiplier of fourteen while awarding compensation. In view of the fact that the deceased was employed with Kingston Electronics as Liaison Officer after his service with the Indian Air Force on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,400. 00 per month (Ex. PW 8/1), his salary was to increase after successful completion of six months of probation period, there was a likelihood of his getting more salary and subsequent promotions in his life. Even otherwise, the multiplier of fourteen keeping in view the age of deceased who was 35 years old was not enough in view of Schedule 2 appended with the Motor Vehicle Act where the deceased would fall in the category of those persons who would be entitled to multiplier of sixteen. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of circulating, I hold that multiplier of sixteen ought to have been made applicable in the case of the deceased. Calculating on the basis of multiplier. of sixteen, the total compensation would works out to be 1,78,560. 00. To my mind, there is force in argument of learned counsellor the appellants that liability ought to have been that of the Insurance Company instead of owner as the Insurance Company neither produced the original policy before the Tribunal nor brought any tariff and did not dispule the factum that it was a policy covering public risk. Therefore, I set asid,e the Finding of the Tribunal on that account and hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay whole amount of compensation. ( 6 ) APART from the above, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 would be just compensation on account of funeral charges, toss of estates and toss of consortium. I agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and direct respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 10,000. 00 to the appellants. I direct respondent No. 3 pay an amount of Rs. 38,560. 00 after deducting the amount of Rs 1,50,000. 00 , which has already been paid, with interest @ Rs. 6% per annum form the date of the petition. The appeal is allowed.