Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 640 (JK)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasho Devi

2016-12-07

R.SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal is of the year 2009. It is a case of fatal accident. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. Accident in this case happened on 1.11.2005. One Anil Sharma Son of Ved Parkash said to be self employed and a bachelor running his own dairy farm died in the road accident due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle who caused the accident and the resultant death of Anil Sharma, as also the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate the claim based on a valid Insurance Policy is not seriously disputed. The plea is only on the quantum of compensation. 3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal as against the claim of income of Rs.8000/- per month has fixed the income of deceased at Rs. 6000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, determined the pecuniary loss of income to the mother and sister at Rs. 48000/- per annum. By adopting multiplier of 13 based on the age of the mother granted following amount as compensation: For loss if dependency Rs. 6,24,000/- For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.6,39,000 With interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. The plea of appellant that the deduction in case of bachelor should be 50% is justified but however on going through the award, the quantum does not appear to be excessive and need not to be interfered with for the reason that on the death of a bachelor the multiplier of 18 is to be adopted in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case titled 2015 (6) SCC 347 : JKJ Soft JKJ/32509 Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. reported in 2015 Legal Eagle (SC) 488. Paragraph 12 and 13 of which reads as follows: "12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: "36. In Sarla verma, this Court has endeavoured to simply the otherwise compels exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166 it has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that he claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma." 13. In Sarla Verma (supra) at paragraph-19, a two judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Sept 2. To quote: "19. x x x x xx xxxx Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased." 5. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased." 5. Further no amount has been granted for loss and affection to the mother and sister, therefore, the excessive amount, if any, can be adjusted on these heads. No ground made out for reducing the quantum of compensation. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within eight weeks and the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same. Appeal Dismissed.