Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 654 (JK)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rafiqa Begum

2016-12-09

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. The appellant-Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 21-2-2012 passed in Claim Petition No. 26/Claim. Claimant-Rafiqa Begum has filed cross appeal seeking enhancement of the award. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant as also Mr. Piyush Gupta, counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. On the death of 22 years old Waseem Raja bachelor stated to be conductor of the offending vehicle, mother is claimant, She is stated to be a divorcee. The Tribunal based on oral evidence fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month and added 30% towards future prospects. 17 multiplier is adopted and after deducting towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the following amount was granted as compensation: Loss of income Rs.14,14,536/- Funeral expenses Rs.2000/- Loss of estate Rs.2500/- Total Rs.14,19,036/- With interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant pleads that adding 30% to the income which is already on the higher side, is erroneous. The 3rd deduction is wrong because it is a case of death of a bachelor and, therefore, should be deducted and the compensation reduced. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant, however, pleaded that meager amount has been granted for burial expenses and towards loss of estate. No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the mother on the death of her son. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in 2009(3) Supreme 487 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), while dealing with future prospects held that the future prospectus in case of a self employed person ought not be considered. Further in the case of a bachelor 50% deduction should be made which has not been done. 7. In this case the Tribunal has erred in adding future prospects in the case of a self employed person. There is no overwhelming evidence to consider and grant future prospects. Furthermore, appellant Insurance Company is justified in stating that reduction of 50% for personal expenses of the deceased bachelor is tenable. The award to that extent is erroneous and excessive. The income has to be taken as per evidence without adding future prospects and 50% should be deducted for personal expenses. 8. Furthermore, appellant Insurance Company is justified in stating that reduction of 50% for personal expenses of the deceased bachelor is tenable. The award to that extent is erroneous and excessive. The income has to be taken as per evidence without adding future prospects and 50% should be deducted for personal expenses. 8. Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken @ Rs.8000/- and after deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting 18 as multiplier the pecuniary loss of income of the dependant mother would be Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.4000 x 12 x 18). The claimant will be entitled to compensation on other heads which the Tribunal omitted. 9. The modified award is as under: S.No Head. Award of Modified Tribunal award. 1. For loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.14,14,536/- Rs.8,64,000/- 2. For burial expenses Rs.2000/- Rs.5000/- 3. For loss of love and affection to mother nil Rs.50,000/- 4. For loss of estate Rs.2500/- Rs.15000/- Total Rs.14,19,036/- Rs.9,34,000/- (Rs.0020nine lac thirty four thousand) Interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed and the cross appeal stands dismissed as no ground is made out for enhancing the compensation.