Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 247 (JK)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rita Koul

2009-05-18

BARIN GHOSH, MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2009
Barin Ghosh, CJ. (Oral) 1. A forty-two years old person, who was Manager of a nationalised Bank, died due to a motor vehicle accident. The motor vehicle in question was insured by the appellant. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased approached the Tribunal seeking compensation on no fault basis too. The Tribunal reduced the multiplier of 16 to 10. For that, it gave the following reasons:- "But keeping in view the uncertainties of life and so many other factors like his posting in any other places other than Jammu where he would have been spending the major portion of his salary for paying the rent etc, the age of his son and daughter which were 20 years and 15 years respectively and further that the amount of compensation shall not be windfall but be proportionate to the needs of the claimants, the multiplier of 10 is deemed to be most appropriate and reasonable one in order to calculate the future income to the petitioners." 2. On an appeal preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal, a learned Single Judge of this Court interfered with only that portion of the judgment and order of the Tribunal by which the multiplier was reduced from 16 to 10. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal enhanced the multiplier from 10 to 14. In support of the Judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge recorded as follows:- "...[A]t the time of accident the deceased was 42 years of age and was working on a stable job, it is expected that he would have earned future promotion, as he had to serve the bank for another 18 years. There is no evidence on record showing that the deceased was suffering from any disease or illness, which could have brought down the expectancy of his life. The reasonable and liberal view of future prospects should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not taken into account these factors while scaling down the multiplier from 15 to 10. There is no dispute that the multiplier can be scaled down, but this is to be done in exceptional cases...." 3. The statutory multipliers, as provided in the Schedule to the Act, being statutory in nature, they are to be applied. However, inasmuch as while providing those multipliers many other things, like the state of health, family history, etc. There is no dispute that the multiplier can be scaled down, but this is to be done in exceptional cases...." 3. The statutory multipliers, as provided in the Schedule to the Act, being statutory in nature, they are to be applied. However, inasmuch as while providing those multipliers many other things, like the state of health, family history, etc. with varying standards have not been provided; while the multipliers as provided cannot be raised but certainly the same can be reduced provided there are just reasons to do so. The just reasons would not depend upon the feelings or wishes or expectations of the Court; they are to be justified by reasons to be recorded which must be supported by evidence on record. 4. In the instant case, there was neither any evidence as to spending by the deceased of the major portion of his salary for paying rent etc, nor the age of the daughter or son had any nexus with the quantum of compensation to be paid. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the multiplier from 16 to 10. At the same time, there was no evidence of what future promotions could be had by the deceased. Merely, the deceased was to serve for more than 18 years, in the absence of evidence, a finding recorded that he would have earned future promotions would be a mere guess work. 5. The conclusion would be that inasmuch as, there was no evidence on the record of the case which could justify reduction of the applicable multiplier and there being no independent appeal by the claimants before the Tribunal or cross appeal by them, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal, although the Appellate Court wrongly took note of 15 as the multiplier when it is admittedly 16 and directed application of 14 as multiplier. The appeal, accordingly, stand disposed of.