Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 183 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saraljit Kour

2009-04-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. Appellant/insurer has questioned the judgment and award dated 14.03.2005, passed in Claim Petition No. 346(Claims) titled Saraljit Kour & Ors Vs. Dr-. Kamaljeet Singh & Ors, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Award holders Victims of the vehicular accident have also questioned the adequacy of compensation by the medium of Cross Appeal No. 13/2006. Brief Facts of the Case: 3. Smt. Tejinder Kour, became the victim of vehicular accident caused by the driver namely, Dr. Kamaljeet Singh, while driving vehicle (Maruti Car) bearing registration No.JK01/9891 hit Dev Raj Rehriwala and lost control over the offending vehicle thereby caused the accident. Smt. Tejinder Kour and her father in law, S. Manghat Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties awarded Rs. 25,65,200/- as compensation in favour of the victims of the vehicular accident-claimants. 5. Learned counsel for tile appellant argued that Tribunal has fallen in error while assessing the compensation and further argued that claimants were not entitled to compensation under the heads `love and affection and `shock and agony. Further, the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency is on higher side. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the award on any other count. 6. Admittedly, the deceased, Smt. Tejinder Kour, was Gynecologist and a Government employee and her salary has been taken at Rs.21,200/- by the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 47 years. Multiplier applicable was 13 but learned Tribunal applied multiplier 8. Keeping in view the amount of multiplicand and the judgment delivered in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan, AIR 2002 SC 2607, multiplier 9 was just and appropriate. 7. The learned Tribunal after applying the principle laid down in case titled Ritaben alias Vanitaben & anr. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service & anr., reported as 2000 ACJ 153, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.21200/- double of it--Rs.42,400/- divided by 2, to Rs.31,800/-. This exercise appears to have been made correctly. But Tribunal has fallen in error while awarding Rs.5000/- as income out of private practice. At the internal page-15 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants have failed to lead any evidence in order to prove the income of the deceased, out of the private practice. This exercise appears to have been made correctly. But Tribunal has fallen in error while awarding Rs.5000/- as income out of private practice. At the internal page-15 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants have failed to lead any evidence in order to prove the income of the deceased, out of the private practice. However, it has awarded Rs.5000/- while observing that it is expected that deceased was having an extra income of Rs.5000/- per month. It was for the claimants to prove that what was the income of the deceased from private practice. 8. I have gone through the records. It is a fact that claimants have not led any cogent evidence in order to prove what was the income of the deceased out of the private practice. Thus, Tribunal has fallen in error while granting compensation under the head `private practice. 9. The claimants are minor sons and daughter and have been deprived of the love and affection of their mother-deceased which cannot be compensated and money is no substitute. Thus, it can be safely said that the minor children have been deprived of love and affection due to the untimely death of the deceased. Same view has been taken in judgment delivered in cases titled Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Padmini Sivaramakrishnan & Ors, reported as 2005 ACJ 614, Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Sushama Ghosh & others reported as 1986 ACJ 1025 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Parkash Kaur and others, reported as 1998 ACJ 1397. 10. Viewed thus the compensation under the head love and affection is maintained. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.21200 x 12 x 9 = Rs.22,89,600/- and Rs.25000/- under the head `love and affection, i.e., total amount of Rs.23,14,600/- with 6% interest from the date of institution of the claim petition till final realization including interim maintenance. 11. Accordingly the impugned award is modified and the appeal and cross appeal are disposed of.