Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 554 (UTT)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NEEMA DEVI

2015-12-07

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for all concerned, it transpires that the above-titled seven appeals, have emerged out of the same accident and are against the judgment of the Tribunal, rendered on different dates, so are being adjudicated together for adjudication. 2. The accident occurred on 29.8.2007 when the Jeep, owned by Smt. Munni Devi, filled up with several passengers, was being plied from Almora town towards the interior hilly roads. At about 5:15 PM, when such vehicle was around 500 meters before its destination Kanalichhina, it skidded off the road and fell into a deep gorge. With the result, as many as ten passengers, namely, Deepak Bhatt, Hukum Singh, Smt. Vimla, Ajay Singh, Sunil, Km. Deepa, G.C. Arya, Govind Prasad, Kheem Singh and Hari Dutt (in all ten) died, whereas other on-board passengers, namely, Smt. Radha, Mohan Singh, Pratap Singh, Smt. Seeta Bohara, Km. Pushpa, Smt. Govind and Smt. Deepa (seven in number) suffered the injuries. These deceased and injured persons were besides the driver of such vehicle, and such state of affairs has been deposed by OPW2 Mr. Hem Chand Suyal, who investigated the matter after such accident and submitted his enquiry report. This way, it is abundantly clear that the offending vehicle was carrying as many as 17 passengers for commutation besides such driver. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards AO No.345 of 2009, wherein Arjun Singh and Krishan Singh (adult sons of deceased Hukum Singh) have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,76,000/-. Deceased used to get Rs.5,842/- as monthly pension from the Government. He was 52 years of age at the relevant time. His wife Smt. Vimla Devi also lost her life in the same accident. So, Mr. Hukam Singh did not leave any dependent before passing away. Hence, the learned counsel has argued that in this eventuality, the Tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of deceased. In the case of Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) Vol. 6, Page 121, the dependency has been observed to be determined from case to case basis and when there is no dependency, the deduction under this head may be made up to 50 percent. In the case of Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) Vol. 6, Page 121, the dependency has been observed to be determined from case to case basis and when there is no dependency, the deduction under this head may be made up to 50 percent. Finding force in this argument and taking the tentative pension of deceased Hukam Singh as Rs.6,000/- per month, I reduce 1/2 of the same towards the personal expenses of deceased, which he could have incurred for himself and his wife. Incidentally, his wife also lost life in the same incident. In such circumstances, the annual income, for determining the compensation, is accepted as Rs.36,000/- and applying the multiplier of -8-, as has been applied by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,88,000/- (Rupees two lakh and eighty eight thousand only). Rest of the amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, is left intact in this appeal. 4. In A.O. No.300 of 2009, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the wife of deceased has got employment on a Class IV post in the same school, where her husband was working, on the basis of dying-in-harness, and thus, the quantum of compensation should be reduced adjusting it from the family pension. The Court does not find any force in this submission and thus, rejects the same. 5. This Court has evaluated the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal concerned, in rest of the appeals, shown in the cause title, and found that there is no infirmity in the quantum of compensation, as has been awarded to the legal heirs/dependents or the injured themselves. 6. With the result, the AO No.345 of 2009 stands disposed of, as above, and at the same time, the remaining appeals are dismissed, as having no force of law. 7. The amount, so deposited in this Court by the appellant-insurance company, in the form of statutory deposit, be remitted to the concerned Tribunal for being paid to the claimants accordingly. 8. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR of all cases be sent to the court concerned for compliance.