Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 542 (RAJ)

Sarla v. Ashok Kumar Sharma

2001-03-30

J.C.VERMA

body2001
Honble VERMA, J.–The claimant is widow of Vijay Bhadur who on the date of accident i.e. on 17.2.1984 was of 51 years of age. He was a medical doctor by profession and was having a degree of MBBS. At the time of accident he was holding the post of Senior Administrator in the Government Hospital of SMS at Jaipur. (2). Claim application was filed by the widow and the parents. The deceased doctor had died when he was hit by a matador driven by one Ashok Kumar respondent No.1 bearing No. RNB 3422 coming from Jaipur towards Sanganer. The Tribunal had found the driver of the Matador to be rash and negligent. The deceased was crushed under the wheels. The Luna on which the deceased riding was damaged. The Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 92,000/- only. (3). The appellant had also filed a separate claim application. Both the claim applications were tagged together. However, the appeal has been filed only by the widow. The parents have been made party as respondents. (4). For the reasons that enhancement of compensation is being claimed, there is hardly any necessity to go into other aspects of the case i.e. about the manner of the accident as to how it was caused or negligence part of that. In the appeal in hand, the court is presently concerned with the enhancement. The following facts were brought on record:- (1) the date of birth of the deceased was 9.6.1933; (2) he was 51 years of age; (3) he was doctor by profession having medical degree; (4) he was working as Senior Administrator which post is held by the persons having medicine degree. He was a government servant, employed in SMS Hospital; (5) the deceased was at the time of accident i.e. on 17.2.1984 getting an amount of Rs. 2050/-. (5). The Tribunal had by rough estimate, without giving any reasons, assessed the monthly dependency to be Rs. 2050/- p.m. with the multiplier of 7, which holding of the Tribunal is vehemently challenged by the appellant. It is stated that the deceased was a doctor and had he continued in service upto the age of superannuation, his total monthly income would have crossed not less than Rs. 2050/- p.m. with the multiplier of 7, which holding of the Tribunal is vehemently challenged by the appellant. It is stated that the deceased was a doctor and had he continued in service upto the age of superannuation, his total monthly income would have crossed not less than Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Apart from the above fact, even after retirement he would have got the full pension as it was a pensionable post and for the reason that he belonged to the medical profession, after retirement, have could have started his own practice and might have earned sufficient amount. It is stated even the registered medical practitioner after retirement are earning more than Rs. 10,000/-. (6). There is no doubt that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has force. Apart from the increase of pay from time to time, increments as levied and adding of other benefits, it is a fit case where in any case the monthly salary can be doubled by calculating the future prospects. Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 7 which according to me is too less. The deceased was of the age of 51 years. Even as per the schedule attached to the extent Tribunal has amended the minimum multiplier which should have been granted was 11. In such circumstances, the total future pay of a doctor of the qualification of MBBS is assessed to be Rs. 4100/- i.e. doubt of the pay he was getting at the time of his death and after deducting one third from the said pay for his own, the dependency comes to Rs. 2733/- p.m. and by multiplying it by 12, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 32,786/- with the multiplier of 11, the total compensation is assessed as Rs. 3,60,756/-. (7). The widow has been granted Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium which is too less. It is increased to Rs. 20,000/-. The parents have been granted an amount of Rs. 2,000/- only for loss of their son which according to him is also too less. It is increased minimum to Rs. 10,000/-. For making it a round figure of Rs. 3,90,756/-, another nominal amount of cremation as Rs. 246/- is added. Thus, the total amount is enhanced to Rs. 3,91,000/- (making a found figure). (8). 2,000/- only for loss of their son which according to him is also too less. It is increased minimum to Rs. 10,000/-. For making it a round figure of Rs. 3,90,756/-, another nominal amount of cremation as Rs. 246/- is added. Thus, the total amount is enhanced to Rs. 3,91,000/- (making a found figure). (8). Shri As Narang who is present in this court was requested to address arguments on behalf of the insurance company at the directions of this court itself. (9). During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.4 Ambalal, the father of the deceased, had died in the year 1995 and the application was moved to bring his legal heirs on record i.e. one Shri Yuvraj Bahadur Mathur for which an application was also moved and he was brought on record vide order dated 17.7.1998. (10). Shri Yuvraj Bahadur Mathur is the son of Ambalal and brother of deceased. After the death of Said Amba Lal, the whole of the amount payable as compensation is to be disbursed to the appellant Sarla Devi as Yuvraj Bahadur Mathur may be one of the heir of the father of the deceased, but he was not the dependent of the deceased. Even no claim was made by him in the original petition. No reason has been given by the Tribunal as to why and in what circumstances the amount awarded was ordered to be shared in equal share by the wife and the father of the deceased Ambalal who admittedly was of the age of 75 years, but now has died and as such in my opinion whole of the amount of compensation is now payable to the appellant Sarla Devi widow of deceased. (11). Counsel for the appellant states that whole of the amount is payable by the insurance company for the reason that the premium which was being paid was Rs. 240/- against the premium of Rs. 200/- and relies for the said proposition on a Division Bench judgment of this court in New India Insurance Company vs. Hari Kishan & others. (1), As per the insurance policy, a premium of Rs. 240/- was paid at the relevant time chargeable in case of liability of third party risk. Division Bench had relied on the case of this court in Dropdi Devi & Ors. (1), As per the insurance policy, a premium of Rs. 240/- was paid at the relevant time chargeable in case of liability of third party risk. Division Bench had relied on the case of this court in Dropdi Devi & Ors. vs. Inder Kumar & Another (2), and a judgment of Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Kakkar & Ors. (3), wherein it was held that a sum of Rs. 240/- has been charged by the insurance company to cover third party liability which premium is more than the ``Act only premium of Rs. 200/-, as such the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. The Division Bench had confirmed the judgment of the Single Judge wherein for the reasons that the premium had been paid for third party, the liability of the insurance was held to be unlimited. The counsel for the appellant had also placed on record the Indian Motor Tarrif by National Insurance Company, wherein under Schedule for the premium to the liability to public risk is Rs. 240/- and that of the `Act is only Rs. 200/-. (12). Reliance is also placed in the judgment of this court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi & Ors (4), it was held that the liability was unlimited. Similar was the fact in the case of Vishnu Veer @ Bhola vs. Hari Kishan & Ors. (5). (13). In view of the above-said reasons and discussions, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,91,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. as already awarded by the Tribunal. Whole of the amount shall be payable to the appellant widow of the deceased for the reason that the other claimant Amba Lal, the father of the deceased has since died and it is further held that the liability of the insurance company shall be unlimited in view of the reason that in the present case the premium of Rs. 240/- was paid, which amounted to covering the risk of the third party as well. (14). The misc. appeal is allowed.