Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 246 (UTT)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Munni Joshi

2016-06-09

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited has challenged the impugned judgment dated 16.06.2011, rendered by Additional District Judge, on the ground that the multiplier of “11” has wrongly been applied by the Court below while in any case, it should not exceed “10” even by most liberal standard, where only the parents of young deceased survived. 2. Learned Counsel of the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment “Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. C. Laxman Ayyar & another, reported in 2004 (1) TAC 3. 3. I feel that this judgment has no applicability in the present controversy for the reason, firstly, that this decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court was rendered in October, 2003, while considering several judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court itself, finally a verdict was given in famous Sarla Verma Case on 15.04.2009 and such judgment is holding the reign even today. 4. In Sarla Verma Case, reported in 2009 (2) TAC, a comparative chart of suitability of multiplier has been made taking into account the law laid down in Shushma Thomas Case, Trilok Chandra Case read with Schedule, as has been enacted by the Parliament in the Table No.2nd of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Even have a look on such comparative chart, it can be noticed that all persons, running the age group of 51 to 55 years, the suitable multiplier is of “11”. Although, a young man lost his life in the questioned accident and his parents were alive on 15.07.2006 but at later point of time, his father Shri Keshav Datt Joshi has also expired, so mother Smt. Munni Joshi presented the Claim Petition and at the time of such presentation, her age was 52 years, so naturally, on the date of accident, she was of 51 years. 6. In other judgment, propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court itself “Ramesh Singh and another Vs. Satbir Singh and another”, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 667 , it has been held that even a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided in second Schedule, then the Court has to offset such multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants. It was further held that complicated questions of fact and law arising in accident cases cannot be answered always by relying on mathematical equations. 7. That apart, surviving members of the family were not the mother only but the brothers and sisters as well, as have been stated in Para No.7 of the Claim Petition. Such pleadings indicate that the deceased Mr. Harish Joshi was survived not only by the parents but also, the younger sisters, namely, Bhagwati Joshi (20 years), Shobha Joshi (18 years) and younger brother Vijay Joshi (16 years). So, this way, arguments of learned Counsel of the Insurance Company that at least one-half of dependency of the income should have been deducted while calculating the compensation, does not bear any substance, therefore, it is hereby rejected. 8. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently stressed that the accident occurred on the National Highway, which was broad enough, so the Ambulance, coming from Delhi, can not always be spared from owing the responsibility of contributory negligence. I am unable to agree on this score too for the reason that FIR was lodged against the offending truck and charge-sheet was submitted against its driver after culmination of investigation, wherein nothing had been indicated that the driver of the Ambulance was partially responsible for causing the accident. So, simply assuming the width of National Highway, the responsibility cannot be attributed on the driver of Ambulance, wherein the deceased was boarded and brought from Delhi’s Hospital. 9. Visualizing the nature and circumstances of the accident, it is difficult to anticipate that the Ambulance, which was carrying an ailing patient, was being driven with rashly and negligently. So, that the reasons, as have been set forth above, it is difficult to hold that the driver of Ambulance is responsible for causing the accident, in question. 10. Although, looking to the age of younger brother and sisters, multiplier should not have been applied on the average age of the parents or on the age of mother but I restrain to enhance the applicability of digit multiplier because no appeal has been filed by the claimants in this regard. 10. Although, looking to the age of younger brother and sisters, multiplier should not have been applied on the average age of the parents or on the age of mother but I restrain to enhance the applicability of digit multiplier because no appeal has been filed by the claimants in this regard. It is not always essential that all the dependants must join while presenting the Claim Petition because the mother was naturally Karta of the family after even passing away of Shri Keshav Datt Joshi (father of deceased Shri Harish Joshi), so, this way, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and this appeal is hereby dismissed. 11. The compulsory statutory amount, deposited by the appellant, shall be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned.