Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1463 (RAJ)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Devi

2010-08-16

DALIP SINGH

body2010
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for appellant-company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-company has contended that the learned Tribunal had allowed the application filed by the insurance-company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide order dated 15.04.2010 and as such the appellant-company is entitled to challenge the award on all grounds, which were available to the owner and the driver of the vehicle, including the quantum. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-company has contended that the learned Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs.4000/- per month and has deducted only 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses while computing the damages on account of loss of earning to the family. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-company. 5. While it is true that the learned Tribunal has only deducted 1/4th of the income towards the personal expenses, however, in the instant case, I find that the learned Tribunal has allowed the multiplier of 15 only, when the case of the age was assessed by the learned Tribunal as 40 years, whereas as per the case of the claimant his age was 38 years. In the event, the age has been assessed as 40 years the multiplier prescribed for the age group of 35-40 years should have been applied and accordingly a multiplier of 16 ought to have been adopted as against 15, adopted by the learned Tribunal. 6. In that view of the matter, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.48000/-, less 1/3rd = Rs.32,000/- with multiplier of 16 = Rs.5,12,000/- as against 5.40,000/- allowed by the learned Tribunal after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses which also has been approved in the case of Sarla Verma by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances no such substantial change is brought out on account of deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses nor can any exception be taken if the deduction of 1/4th has been made towards personal expenses in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. Consequently, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal fails and is dismissed summarily. 10. The stay application also stands dismissed.