Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 631 (JK)

New India Insurance Co. v. Phoola Koul

2016-12-06

R.SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal is of the year 2006. It is an appeal by the Insurance Company as well as the cross appeal by the claimant on the death of one Bushan Lal, Assistant Manager State Bank of India who died on 10.11.2000 in the accident. The deceased was coming to Jammu in a Maruti Car No. JK02E-1515, and it met with an accident near Ramban due to rash and negligence of the driver. The car rolled down the bill. On his death, widow approximately 50 years, two unmarried daughter 21 and 19 years, one unmarried son 21 years and mother filed the claim petition seeking compensation. The mother died pending the appeal. 2. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle who caused the accident and the resultant death of Bushan Lal as also the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate the claim based on the valid Insurance Policy is not seriously disputed. 3. The issue raised in the appeal is on the quantum of compensation. One Mr. S.P. Nargotra, the Branch Manager of SBI Banihal was examined to prove the income of the deceased. Two documents were produced by the witness on income, one is the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of February 2003 and the other is the LPC for the month of July 1999 produced by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal determined the income at Rs. 20,504/-. There is no serious dispute on the income fixed. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased at 51 years and stated that the multiplier of 7 should be taken. But while calculating the multiplier of 8 was applied after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. The following amount was granted: Loss of dependency Rs.10,84,800/- Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.11,14,800/- With interest @6% per annum 4. In appeal it is stated that the multiplier should be 7 whereas the Tribunal has applied 8 as multiplier. 5. In CIMA No. 43/2006, the only plea taken by the counsel for the appellant is that the income should be taken @ Rs. 22000/-. Further no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the claimants. Hence, compensation has to be enhanced. 6. 5. In CIMA No. 43/2006, the only plea taken by the counsel for the appellant is that the income should be taken @ Rs. 22000/-. Further no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the claimants. Hence, compensation has to be enhanced. 6. Insofar as income part is concerned, there are two different versions in the documents placed on record, one is post the death the salary drawn certificate of the deceased dated February 2003 and the other is the LPC for the month of July 1999. The deceased died in the year 2000. The Tribunal is correct in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 20500/- analyzing both the documents. The 8 multiplier taken does not really affect the award. In this case a meager amount has been granted for the loss of consortium. Hence, an additional amount of Rs. 35000/-, is granted for loss of consortium. Three children will be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- each for loss of love and affection on the death of the father. No amount has been given for funeral expenses for which Rs. 15000/- is granted. The compensation is enhanced. 7. The enhanced award is as follows: s . n o. Head Award of tribunal Modified award 1. l oss of dependency Rs.10,84,800/- c onfirmed 2. l oss of consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Confirmed 4. Loss of love and affection to three children Nil Rs.90,000/- 5. Funeral charges Nil Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.11,14,800/- Rs.12,54,800/- Accordingly, CIMA No. 35/2006 is dismissed. CIMA No. 43/2006 is allowed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within eight weeks and the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same.