Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 70 (UTT)

SAVITRI VERMA v. RANJIT SINGH

2013-02-28

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal was finally decided on 18.7.2011. Against the order, a review application was moved by the respondent no.2 Insurance Company on the ground that on that date Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no.2 was not present in the Court but inadvertently presence of said counsel was recorded in the judgment on behalf of insurance company. By the order dated 28.03.2012, review application has been allowed. 2. Therefore, today this appeal is again taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in the judgment and award passed by this Court on 18.7.2011 which was set aside on review application filed by respondent no.2 Insurance company. The same are need not to be reiterated and are treated part of this judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal has applied the multiplier on lesser side. He also contended that the dead body of the deceased was brought from Assam to his native place and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was spent on it and the claimants are entitled to get this sum from the insurance company. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the insurance company-respondent no.2 while supporting the judgment and order of the Tribunal has contended that the tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 12 and the appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed. 6. The tribunal has dealt with the issue of compensation on issue no.4. The claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased hence the tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the annual dependency of the claimants over the deceased comes to Rs.24,000/-. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of his death and applied a multiplier of 12. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of his death and applied a multiplier of 12. I find that the multiplier applied by the tribunal is certainly on lesser side in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), in which the suitable multiplier between the age group of 26 to 30 has been given as ‘17’. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of ‘17’ the compensation comes to Rs.24,000/- X 17 = 4,08,000/-. 7. So far as the another limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, the claimant Smt. Savitri Devi has stated in her statement that the dead body of her husband was brought to Delhi from Guhati by air and thereafter from Delhi to Dehradun it was brought in an ambulance and thereafter it was carried to Haridwar for cremation and she spent Rs.10,000/- on it. There is no reason to disbelieve the above statement of Smt. Savitri Devi. In my opinion, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- spent on transportation . 8. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,08,000/- + Rs.10,000 + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.4,25,000/- 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. The claimants/appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation from United India Insurance Company instead of Rs.2,95,500/- as has been awarded by the tribunal. The claimants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 10. Out of amount of compensation awarded by this Court, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank in the name of claimant K. Vernika till the age of her attaining majority and rest of the amount shall be paid to claimant Smt. Savitri Devi. 11. Appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent of the quantum. Rest part of the order is maintained.