Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 228 (UTT)

BHAGESHWARI DEVI v. HARENDRA SINGH GUSAI

2015-04-23

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company, it transpires that the accident occurred on 17th June, 2005, and as a consequence of the said accident, Mr. Hari Singh Negi, running in his mid forties, lost his life on 18th June, 2015. So, the dependants/claimants of the deceased (wife, a son and a daughter) filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. Considering all the aspects, learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.2,17,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred) with the direction to the Insurance Company to make the payments within a month, failure whereof, will incur 8% simple annual interest from the date of institution of the Claim Petition. 2. Feeling disgruntled, this appeal has been filed by the dependants/claimants of the deceased for enhancement. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of “Smt. Godawari and Others Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2006 (2) U.D. Page No. 665,” has assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- for calculating the quantum of compensation. 4. In another case “Smt. Mayawati and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, 2006 (2) U.D. Page No.657,” it was considered by this Court that an ordinary man could have earned Rs.100/- in a day, this way, his monthly income comes to Rs.3,000/-. As such, the annual income @ Rs.36,000/- should have been accepted for calculating the quantum of compensation. 5. This Court finds that the annual income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court, when the monthly income of the deceased was told to be Rs.4,000/- and his employer deposed before the Court that deceased used to earn Rs.85/- per day. So, with those facts, taking into consideration that the accident occurred in the year 2003, while the notional income, as has been contemplated in the Act, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per annum, was provisioned in the year 1994; so, the annual income was assessed as Rs.30,000/- as optimum for calculating the quantum of compensation. 6. So, with those facts, taking into consideration that the accident occurred in the year 2003, while the notional income, as has been contemplated in the Act, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per annum, was provisioned in the year 1994; so, the annual income was assessed as Rs.30,000/- as optimum for calculating the quantum of compensation. 6. In the case in hand, the deceased specifically pleaded that he used to run a shop in a remote hilly area and he purchased the goods in wholesale and thereafter, the same were sold to the retailers and this wholesale purchase was on an average of Rs.8,000/- per month. So, the Tribunal assessed that if a person, who runs such a shop, was making purchase of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month in wholesale, then his retail sale can be termed between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-, and his income out of those total sale consideration may not be more than Rs.2,000/- per month and the annual income of the deceased was thus assessed as Rs.24,000/-. Even, in the higher side, the monthly income of the deceased could be taken by the Tribunal is Rs.2,500/- per month. This way, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. 7. By deducting one-third on the sum of Rs.30,000/- which deceased could have expenses for himself, the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- should be given to his dependants, and then, the multiplier of “13” is to be applied to Rs.20,000/-, and thus, the total income comes to Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Thousand). The other amount, towards cremation, lost of consortium and lost of estate, is left intact, making total award of compensation is Rs.2,69,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred). 8. The repeated findings of the High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court are that there is no straight jacket formula for evaluating the award of compensation, which is applicable uniformly in each and every case but it depends on several factors and differs from case to case. The standard of living of the claimants and their background is to be considered by the Court while awarding the compensation. A shop-keeper, running his shop in an advanced urban area, cannot be compared with the shop-keeper, who is running his shop in a remote hilly area. 9. The standard of living of the claimants and their background is to be considered by the Court while awarding the compensation. A shop-keeper, running his shop in an advanced urban area, cannot be compared with the shop-keeper, who is running his shop in a remote hilly area. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the interest should have been awarded from the date of accident if not from the date of institution of the Claim Petition. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Devi Dayal Kansal and Others Vs. Raj Roop and Another, (2000) 10 SCC 314 .” 10. I feel that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not on an identical analogy as has been stated in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is altogether on the different premise. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby disposed of with the enhanced quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,69,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred), and at the same time, awarding 8% interest shall remain untouched. However, the analogy as has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellants applies to the enhanced award of Rs.52,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand) as has been adjudicated by this Court. So, the Insurance Company will pay the Rs.52,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand) with the simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order of the Tribunal i.e. 05.03.2009 on this enhanced amount too.