Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2603 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Devi

2011-11-28

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—Shri Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas at the age of deceased 28 years, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). His second contention is that in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma supra, only 50% should have been added for future prospect, but the learned Tribunal erred in law while enhancing the salary of the deceased 100% and making it double to compute the compensation and therefore compensation that has been awarded is not reasonable and just. The compensation should not be a bonanza and should be reasonable and justified one. Learned counsel further argued that widow of the deceased was given compassionate appointment with the employer of the deceased i.e. State Government in police department and therefore this factor should also be taken into consideration while computing total awardable compensation and the applicability of the multiplier. 2. Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for claimant respondents No.1 to 4 / cross objectors has opposed the appeal and argued in cross objection that in the present case adding of 100% salary for the future prospect and applying the multiplier of 18 may be justified because pay of the deceased was revised w.e.f. 1.9.2006, whereas date of accident is 10.9.2006. In other words, his contention is that the deceased's pay for atleast four months preceding his death by accident was much more than as what was taken for computation of compensation and therefore this matter be remanded enabling claimants to adduce evidence on this aspect. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that whether or not pay of the deceased was revised and to what extent it was revised although the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the pay was revised w.e.f. 1.9.2006, whereas accident took place on 10.9.2006. 4. In the interest of justice, claimants to be afforded an opportunity to adduce such evidence and the insurance company in rebuttal before the Tribunal. 5. In the result the appeal as well as the cross-objection are disposed of. 4. In the interest of justice, claimants to be afforded an opportunity to adduce such evidence and the insurance company in rebuttal before the Tribunal. 5. In the result the appeal as well as the cross-objection are disposed of. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, District Jaipur dated 27.5.2008 is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. Tribunal upon remand of the matter shall consider the arguments, which have been advanced by the Insurance Company as to the applicability of the correct multiplier and computation of compensation for future prospect as aforesaid. The award may be passed within sixty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.12.2011. Tribunal shall afford opportunity to the claimants to adduce additional evidence and also to the Insurance Company in rebuttal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The amount invested in the F.D.R. shall be abide by the final award that may be passed by the Tribunal now. 6. The record be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.