Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 478 (UTT)

Abdulla v. Sudesh Rani

2016-08-16

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All these appeals have arisen out of the judgment granting compensation, which has been evaluated by learned Tribunal on account of death in the accident, which occurred on 03.07.2008 at 1:00 PM by Mini Bus No. UA-04-A-0397. This bus was being driven on Haldwani-Bazpur Road. The accident, insurance and losing of life of various persons has not been denied by the insurer company. 2. The claimants have come up before the Court for enhancement of the award while cross-appeals have been filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of award, which has been granted by the Tribunal. 3. All these appeals as well as cross-appeals delve with identical issues, hence are being taken up together for adjudication by this common verdict. 4. Insurance company has challenged the award on certain other aspects, like validity of driving license and non-examination of bus owner Smt. Sudesh Rani but such issues have been dealt with by this Court on 12.08.2016 while adjudicating the bunch of appeals (leading AO No. 37 of 2012). Such findings of the Court shall be applicable in these matters as well except on the question of quantum, which is being dealt with herein below individually for each appeal:- Appeal from Order No. 424 of 2010 with Cross Appeal No. 03 of 2010 5. In this appeal, deceased Abdul Rahman, a bachelor youth of 22 years, used to work as a mason. Learned Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs.36,000/- as the base amount for evaluation of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants has agitated that multiplier should have been applicable looking to the age of deceased and not to the age of parents. This contention is not acceptable for the reason that the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Shanti Pathak and Others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 1 , as relied by another Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Shyam Singh and Others, reported in 2011 (3) TAC 625, it was held that where the deceased was a bachelor leaving his parents, then whoever is higher in age, the multiplier shall be applicable looking to the age of the persons, who were higher on that factor. 7. 7. It is not disputed that the parents of the deceased Abdul Rahman were running between the age group of 51 to 55 years, so the multiplier should have been of “11” as per Sarla Verma Case. 8. This way, after deducting one-half towards personal expenses, total compensation comes to Rs.1,98,000/-. Rest of the amount, granted by the Tribunal on other scores, if any, is not disturbed by this Court. 9. The award is modified in the above terms and appeal (AO No. 424 of 2010) and cross appeal (CROSA No. 03 of 2011) are disposed of accordingly. Appeal from Order No. 425 of 2010 with Cross Appeal No. 04 of 2010 10. Deceased Imran Ali, a youth of 21 years, was also a bachelor and is said to be working as a mason. His parents were running between the age group of 51 to 55 years. 11. This way, the amount of compensation Rs.1,46,000/- as has been granted by the Tribunal, is modified to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/- as discussed hereinbefore while adjudicating AO No. 424 of 2010. 12. Rest of the amount, granted by the Tribunal on other scores, if any, is not disturbed by this Court. 13. The award is modified in the above terms and appeal (AO No. 425 of 2010) and cross appeal (CROSA No. 04 of 2011) are disposed of accordingly. Appeal from Order No. 426 of 2010 with Cross Appeal No. 01 of 2010 14. It entails the death of Mr. Suleman, a youth of 20 years, who was also a bachelor and is said to be working as a mason. His parents were also running between the age group of 51 to 55 years. 15. So, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- as has been granted by the Tribunal, is enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/- as has been discussed by this Court hereinbefore. Rest of the amount, granted by the Tribunal on other scores, if any, is not disturbed by this Court. 16. In the above terms, appeal (AO No. 426 of 2010) as well as cross appeal (CROSA No. 01 of 2011) are disposed of. Appeal from Order No. 427 of 2010 with Cross Appeal No. 05 of 2010 17. It deals with the determination of compensation for the death of Mr. Mustakim, a youth of 20 years. He was said to be working as a mason. Appeal from Order No. 427 of 2010 with Cross Appeal No. 05 of 2010 17. It deals with the determination of compensation for the death of Mr. Mustakim, a youth of 20 years. He was said to be working as a mason. His parents were running between the same age group of 51 to 55 years. 18. So, the amount of compensation Rs.1,46,000/- as has been granted by the Tribunal, is enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/- as has been modified by this Court hereinbefore. 19. Rest of the amount, granted by the Tribunal on other scores, if any, is not disturbed by this Court. 20. In the above terms, appeal (AO No. 427 of 2010) as well as cross appeal (CROSA No. 05 of 2011) are disposed of. Appeal from Order No. 395 of 2011 21. This appeal has been filed with the delay of 291 days. Such delay is condoned on the grounds highlighted in the enclosed affidavit. Delay condonation application (CLMA 9909/2011) is accordingly allowed. 22. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 23. This appeal pertains to the death of Mr. Shamshad, who was the bread earner of whole family. His wife and children came up before this Court by filing the instant appeal. The age of Mr. Shamshad was 40 years at the time of accident. 24. Learned Tribunal has taken the notional income in absence of any proof and granted the award to the tune of Rs.4,12,000/-. Learned counsel for the insurance company has fairly admitted that this award is proper, therefore, it is not disturbed by the Court. 25. In view of what has been set forth above, this appeal (AO No. 395 of 2011) has no force and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal from Order No. 574 of 2011 26. None turns up on behalf of the respondents even in the revised call, while on previous date, learned counsel for the claimants was present. 27. This appeal deals with the death of Mr. Gurdeep Singh, a man of 28 years. Since, he was a bachelor, hence the evaluation of award to the tune of Rs.93,000/- is accepted to be proper by the learned counsel for the insurance company, therefore, this appeal (AO No. 574 of 2011) of the insurance company has no force and it is hereby dismissed. 28. Gurdeep Singh, a man of 28 years. Since, he was a bachelor, hence the evaluation of award to the tune of Rs.93,000/- is accepted to be proper by the learned counsel for the insurance company, therefore, this appeal (AO No. 574 of 2011) of the insurance company has no force and it is hereby dismissed. 28. In all the appeals, where compulsory statutory amount, if lying in the Registry, shall be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned. The excess amount, if any found, shall be returned to the insurance company. 29. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the Tribunal concerned for information and compliance.