Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 109 (JK)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Karam Singh

2008-04-07

J.P.SINGH

body2008
1. Karam Singh respondent was driving his scooter No. JK02-2304 on November 7, 2000 when at about 7.45 p.m his scooter had been hit by a rashly and negligently driven Truck No. JKU-965 by its driver at Bassi Kalian. He filed Claim Petition No. 548/Claims before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu seeking compensation for the injuries caused to him in the accident under various heads including loss of prospective increased income because of his having been rendered disabled to take up his earlier profession of a motor mechanic. The Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs, 12,22,777 along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation under the following heads: - 1. Loss of future income Rs. 9,00,000/- 2. Cost of medicines & treatment Rs. 2,05,777/- 3. Cost of transport charges Rs. 12,000/- 4. Cost of future surgery Rs. 10,000/- 5. Cost of pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- 6. Cost of loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/- 7. Cost of Special diet Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 12,22,777/- 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Jamwal has assailed the award of the Tribunal solely on the ground that the Tribunal had erred in taking appellants presumptive prospective increased income into consideration in assessing his monthly average income at Rs.7500/-. When neither any case of prospective income had been set up nor proved by the claimant. According to the learned counsel the annual loss of future income to the claimant determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 90,000/- was excessive and required to be scaled down by treating the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 5000/. Learned counsel has not disputed the award of the Tribunal under other heads. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that a mechanic being a professional had every possibility to increase his income in the years to come and the Tribunals finding of assessing claimants monthly income at Rs. 7500/- was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel additionally submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was inappropriate and in the given facts, 18, the prescribed multiplier in IInd Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was required to be adopted in the case to determine the loss of income of the claimant. Learned counsel additionally submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was inappropriate and in the given facts, 18, the prescribed multiplier in IInd Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was required to be adopted in the case to determine the loss of income of the claimant. He further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in allowing 6% interest in favour of the claimant whereas going by the latest trend noticed in various judgments of Honble Supreme Court of India, the claimant was entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on records. 5. Law is well settled that in the absence of requisite pleadings and necessary proof in support thereof, a Court or a Tribunal may not have the jurisdiction to award compensation merely on the presumption that every person would increase his existing income in the years to come. 6. Requisite facts are thus required to be pleaded and proof provided by a claimant before succeeding in a claim for prospective presumptive increased income. I am supported in taking this view by Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors., I reported as 2006(2) Supreme 374, where, while dealing with the question, Honble Supreme Court of India had taken the following view- "....... The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs.8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case maybe........" 7. In view of the above legal position, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2 assessing claimants monthly income at Rs. 7500/- cannot thus be justified because the claimant had not led any evidence on the basis whereof his prospective average increased income could be assessed. 8. In view of the above legal position, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2 assessing claimants monthly income at Rs. 7500/- cannot thus be justified because the claimant had not led any evidence on the basis whereof his prospective average increased income could be assessed. 8. I would, therefore, take the income of the deceased at the time of the accident at Rs.5000/- as determined by the Tribunal and which finding of the Tribunal had not been contested by learned counsel for the appellant obviously in view of the abundant evidence which had been produced by the claimant in the case and which justifies assessment of his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. 9. I, however, find that the Tribunal was not right in selecting 10 as the multiplier as against the prescribed multiplier of 18 for the age group, of the claimant. 10. Keeping in view the disability of the claimant to earn his living as a mechanic because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which had disabled him to continue his profession as a mechanic and the long span of life which the claimant had yet to lead, I am of the view that 15 should have been the appropriate multiplier in the present case. This is so because even if the appellant had to be considered fit to do some other sedentary work yet he would not be able to earn that much which he had been earning from his profession as a mechanic before the accident and would accordingly need so much amount by way of compensation which would compensate him for the loss of his future income had he not been disabled to work as a mechanic. 11. Keeping admitted 60% disability suffered by the claimant in view, his monthly future loss would be Rs.3000/-and the annual loss would come to Rs. 36,000/-. The total future loss of income would thus be Rs. 5,40,000/- i.e. (Rs. 36,000/- x 15, the multiplier). 12. I further find that the interest awarded by the Tribunal in the present case, is on the lower side and needs to be raised in view of the law laid-down by Honble Supreme Court of India in Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India, reported as AIR 2003 SC 1817. 13. 36,000/- x 15, the multiplier). 12. I further find that the interest awarded by the Tribunal in the present case, is on the lower side and needs to be raised in view of the law laid-down by Honble Supreme Court of India in Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India, reported as AIR 2003 SC 1817. 13. Keeping in view the inflation and the interest rates prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, I am of the view that 7.5% interest, which is usually adopted in such type of cases would be just and proper rate of interest on the amount to be awarded to the claimant. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is thus modified by substituting the interest rate of 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal by 7.5% per annum. 14. The total amount payable to the claimant by the appellant company shall thus be as follows: - (i) Loss of future income Rs. 5,40,000/- (ii) Cost of medicines & treatment Rs. 2,05,777/- (iii) Transport charges Rs. 12,000/- (iv) Cost of future surgery Rs. 10,000/- (v) Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- (vi) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/- (vii) Special diet Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 8,62,777/- 15. The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified to be an award for an amount of Rs. 8,62,777/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain the same. 16. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above modification in the award. 17. Appellant company to satisfy the modified award by depositing the unpaid amount in this Court within a period of six weeks.