Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 37 (HP)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kashmir Singh

2013-01-07

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Insurance company has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Kangra awarding a sum of Rs. 18,84,280/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation or deposit, to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2, who are the father and mother of the deceased Shri Sanjeev Kumar who was working in the Indian Army. The only point urged is that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is excessive and not in accordance with law. Learned Tribunal relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009)6 SCC 121 adopted the multiplier of 17 and the salary was increased by 50% as loss of earning in future. Thereafter the learned Tribunal proceeded to deduct ?rd amount for his personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs. 17,99,280/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the precedent has been wrongly applied as in case of a bachelor, the deduction is to be 50%. In Sarla Vermas case (supra), the Court holds: "32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." (p.136) In this eventuality, learned counsel submits that 50% of the income has to be deducted for personal expenses. 3. Learned counsel appearing for claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 submits that multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is not correct as the deceased was proved to be 25 years of age and in that eventuality, multiplier of 18 is to be adopted. There is no dispute on both of these propositions as established by Sarla Vermas case supra. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the multiplier on record is excessive. There is no dispute on both of these propositions as established by Sarla Vermas case supra. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the multiplier on record is excessive. This submission cannot be accepted as the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali & others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2012 ACJ 2002 holds that it is the age of deceased and not of the dependent which has to be taken into consideration. 5. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the award is accordingly modified. Monthly income of the deceased is Rs. 8,821/- which has to be increased by 50% which would make it Rs. 13,231/-. After deducting 50% for personal expenses, the amount works out as Rs. 6,615/-. The compensation amount would be Rs. 6,615/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 14,28,840/-. It is directed accordingly. The other amounts as awarded by the learned Tribunal are not interfered with. Amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. 6. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.