Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 61 (GAU)

LALBIAKNUNGI v. ROPARI

2015-01-21

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Lanusungkum Jamir, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Lalramnghaki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. None appears for the respondent No. 1, i.e., owner of the vehicle. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.7.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram in M.A.C.T. Case No. 23 of 2013 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,29,500 was awarded to the claimant-appellant to be paid by the respondent No. 2, i.e., insurance company along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition within one month from the date of the judgment and award. The appellant who was the claimant before the learned Tribunal being not satisfied with the awarded amount has preferred this appeal praying for enhancement of the award. 2. The claimant-appellant before this court is the wife of the deceased, i.e., Zorammuana (L). The deceased who was about 64 years died in a motor vehicle accident involving taxi (Maruti 800) bearing registration No. MZ 01-B 0535 belonging to respondent No. 1. The deceased was a passenger of the taxi and on 3.8.2012 at about 11 a.m. while the said taxi was proceeding towards Aizawl from Serchhip it was swept away by the rubble of a stone quarry located at Berawlui. The taxi was swept down the precipice about 400 ft. from the main road and the deceased who was travelling in the taxi died on the spot. The deceased was earning about Rs. 3,300 per month and the taxi in which he was travelling was insured with the respondent No. 2. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal had made judgment and award as already indicated hereinabove. 3. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that no award has been made towards future prospects of the deceased. 3,300 per month and the taxi in which he was travelling was insured with the respondent No. 2. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal had made judgment and award as already indicated hereinabove. 3. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that no award has been made towards future prospects of the deceased. He also submits that the multiplier with regard to the income was wrongly applied and that the award under the conventional heads has also been made without following the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (a) Savita v. Bindar Singh, 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC); (b) Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC); (c) Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and (d) Kishan Gopal v. Lala, 2013 ACJ 2594 (SC). He therefore submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in law by ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the future prospects and other conventional heads. In that view of the matter, he submits that the award should be interfered by enhancing the awarded amount. 4. Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd., submits that the learned Tribunal has not made any mistake while making the award as they were made as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He also submits that the insurance policy of the vehicle covers only within Aizawl city and not beyond. As the vehicle was coming from Serchhip towards Aizawl and had met with the accident on the outskirts of Aizawl, there is no question of paying any compensation to the claimant-appellant and, therefore, the question of enhancement does not arise. He also submits that the facts and circumstances as considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), as well as Savita, 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC), are different and, therefore, are not applicable to the present case in hand. He also submits that the facts and circumstances as considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), as well as Savita, 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC), are different and, therefore, are not applicable to the present case in hand. While referring to the case of Kishan Gopal, 2013 ACJ 2594 (SC), he submits that the case therein concerned the death of a minor child and, therefore, the compensation was considered from a different angle whereas in the present case, the deceased was a mature person and, therefore, the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) would not cover the present case in hand. He therefore submits that the present appeal be dismissed as being without merit. 5. I have considered the submissions forwarded by learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Considering the judgment and award, this court has noticed that no award has been made towards future prospects. In the case of Rajesh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paras 11 and 12 as under : "(11) Since the court in Santosh Devi's case, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 per cent always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 per cent to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 per cent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. (12) In Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Addition should be 30 per cent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. (12) In Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 per cent in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." 7. In the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 21 therein has held as under : "(21) We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above [prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC); Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC)], which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." This court is therefore of the opinion that multiplier in the present case should be 9. 8. In the case of Savita, 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses respectively. 9. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the case referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case in hand, I am afraid to observe that this court is not in agreement made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 10. 9. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the case referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case in hand, I am afraid to observe that this court is not in agreement made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 10. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case calling for the enhancement of the judgment and award dated 4.7.2014 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 23 of 2013. It is held that appellant shall be entitled to compensation award as under: 11. It is submitted at the Bar that after the judgment and award dated 4.7.2014 was made, respondent No. 2, i.e., insurance company had already paid the awarded amount of Rs. 1,29,500 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the claimant-appellant. 12. That being the position, it is now held that the respondent No. 2, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be liable to pay a further amount of Rs. 3,98,400 - Rs. 1,29,500/- Rs. 2,68,900 (rupees two lakh sixty-eight thousand and nine hundred) along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and order of this court by the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No costs.