Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 85 (MP)

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hajrat Singh

2003-01-14

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, RAJENDRA MENON

body2003
JUDGMENT Chandresh Bhushan, J. -- Aggrieved by an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in claim case No. 31 of 1993, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application i.e., 15.5.1993, the Insurer has preferred this appeal and the claimants, respondents No.1 and 2 have also preferred their cross-objections. The facts in brief are that on 15.2.1993 at about 8.30 in the morning, one Ummed Singh was going towards Shivpuri on a bicycle with his companion Hameer Singh when a Metador bearing registration No. M.K.H. 6109 driven by respondent No.3 and owned by respondent No. 4 collided with him causing several injuries to him as a result of which he died. The deceased, Ummed Singh was aged 22 years at the time of the incident and was unmarried. The claimants who were the parents of the deceased were aged 42 and 40 years, respectively, at the time of the incident. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. During the trial, the learned Tribunal granted permission on 27.6.1995 to the Insurer to cross-examine the witnesses as no objection for the permission was raised by the claimants. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence adduced before it by the parties, concluded that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the respondent No.3, the driver of the Metador and the deceased was a labourer in Mines earning Rs. 50/-, per day and further applying the multiplier of 15 but restricting the total amount to Rs. 2,50,000/- claimed by the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of income and added Rs. 75,000/- for' loss of love and affection. Thus, in all, awarded Rs. 3,25,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application, i.e. 15.5.1993 till the date of payment together with cost of the case. The Insurer has assailed the impugned Award on two counts; one that negligence was not proved and the second, that quantum of compensation awarded was on higher side as :'10 deduction was made for the personal expenses of the deceased and as there was no evidence of any loss on the count of love and affection: According to him the rate of interest should have been 9% per annum only, considering the' prevalent rates of interest. In their cross-objections, the claimants have on the other hand contended that the multiplier of 20 instead of 15 should have been applied, that the claim should not have been restricted to the amount mentioned in their application, that the counsel fee should have been allowed to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- and that the interest also should have been awarded at the rate of 18% per annum which was the then prevalent rate. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimants also contested this appeal on the ground of maintainability contending that the appellant being only an Insurer, could not prefer any appeal on the ground of negligence or against the quantum. However, in view of the permission granted by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 27 .6.1995 this contention raised during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors, cannot be sustained. A Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others (2002) 7 SCC 456 , observed that if permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merits, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, it is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and aged 22 years at the time of incident. It is also not disputed that the claimants were parents of the deceased, aged 42 and 40 years. The learned Tribunal had assessed the total income of the deceased at Rs. 50/- per day and the same has also not been challenged by any of the parties. Learned Claims Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 15 without making any deduction on account of the personal expenses of the deceased and has thus, committed error in this aspect. His now settled law that at least 1/3rd of the income should be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 15 without making any deduction on account of the personal expenses of the deceased and has thus, committed error in this aspect. His now settled law that at least 1/3rd of the income should be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. More over if the present case, where the deceased was a unmarried male, and it could be presumed in normal course that he would have got married and would have spent some amount on his family also, the dependency or loss of income to the claimants calculated at 2/3rd of the annual income of the deceased was in no case on lesser side. Relying on a Division Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Om Prakash and another v. Madhavrao and others 1 (1994) ACC 712, it has been argued by learned counsel for the claimants that the multiplier adopted should have been of 20 and not of 15. In the case of Om Prakash (supra), the longevity at 70 of the claimants was mainly taken into consideration while there was nothing in the present case to suggest that there was any such probable longevity of the claimants. More over, that was a decision given prior to the amendment adding Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein various multipliers calculated on the basis of various age group have been provided and which appears to be a better guideline for adoption. The claim preferred by the claimants was under section 166 of the Act of 1988 and in such claims there are number of factors which the Tribunal has to take into consideration; for example; as to who are the dependents and the age of the parents which are not to be considered in an application under section 163A of the Act of 1988. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das 1993 ACJ 748 has observed that the appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalisation of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents whichever multiplier is lower. In view of this proposition of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. In view of this proposition of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month, after deduction of at least 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income comes to Rs. 12,000/-, and applying the multiplier of 15, the resultant amount Rs. 1,80,000/- appears to be just and proper compensation for loss of income to the claimants. To this, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has to be added as the funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate. As far as the compensation on account of loss of love and affection of deceased is concerned, there was nothing to measure it. However, it also cannot be disputed that the claimants who were the parents of the deceased were put to such a loss and in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the amount already awarded, a sum of Rs. 10,500/- appears to be just and proper. Thus, setting aside the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the quantum of compensation from Rs. 3,25,000/- 'is reduced to Rs. 1,95,000/-, in all. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of 12% per annum granted by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper in view of the past higher rates and the present lower rates. In respect of costs, the impugned award appears to be proper and, is therefore, not interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal is partly al10wed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.