Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2246 (ALL)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. MEERA KHARE

2017-09-21

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 1, Jhansi in MACP No. 110 of 2003 (Smt. Meera Khare and others v. Jagram Singh and others) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,01,000/- alongwith the interest @ 6% per annum to the respondents-claimants inter alia on the ground that the compensation, which has been awarded in favour of respondents-claimants is excessive and also that the Tribunal has not calculated the compensation as contemplated in law. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 14.5.2002, Brij Bahadur Khare alongwith his daughter Km. Neelam Khare and other relatives went to Orcha, District Teekamgarh and from where they were going to Khajuraho by Tata Sumo bearing No. MP 16 D0174 and when they reached near Dhanai Vahad, Police Station Sarkar on Jhansi-Mauranapur Road at 12 Noon, Truck Dumper bearing No. UP 93 E0810, which was being driven rashly and negligently with a very high speed and coming from Mau side, dashed the Tata Sumo, as a result of which all the persons received serious injuries, while Brij Bahadur Khare died on the spot. Thereafter, Km. Neelam Khare was taken to the Medical College, from where she was referred to the Gwalior Hospital looking to her serious condition and during treatment, she died on 15.5.2002. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed with the allegation that deceased Km. Neelam Khare was aged about 22 years and was working as Teacher in the Public Convent Junior High School Simraha, District Jhansi and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. 3. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that deceased Km. Neelam Khare was unmarried. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier as per the age of the deceased. Multiplier should have been applied by the Tribunal as per the age of mother of deceased. Learned counsel has further submitted that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% deduction should have been made by the Tribunal for awarding the just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel has further submitted that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% deduction should have been made by the Tribunal for awarding the just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel has further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, the award, therefore, is liable to be modified. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and, therefore, does not require any interference by this Court, as such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have carefully examined the facts of the case and material evidence available on record in the light of rival legal contentions argued before us by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties. 7. The Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record has held that the accident-in-question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Truck. At the time of accident, deceased was working as Teacher in Public Convent Junior High School, Simraha and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that finding recorded by the Tribunal in regard to the accident and also salary of the deceased is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is correct. 9. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC), the Apex Court in Para No. 11, 15 and 21 has held as under : 11. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax”]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax”]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as per personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. 21. We, therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 10. It is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 22 years. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation applied the multiplier of 16. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), we find that the multiplier of 18 as per the age of deceased ought to have been applied which was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier, we accordingly provide that the multiplier of 18 should be applied. 11. Admittedly, deceased was unmarried and certainly she would be married had she been alive while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses. Since the Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier, we accordingly provide that the multiplier of 18 should be applied. 11. Admittedly, deceased was unmarried and certainly she would be married had she been alive while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), we also find that deduction of 1/2 from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been made by the Tribunal. We, therefore, change the deduction of 1/3rd made by the Tribunal to the extent of 1/2. 12. It is important to be noted here that it is not proved from the evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants that deceased was having permanent job. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that respondents-claimants are not entitled to get any amount of compensation towards future prospects of the deceased. 12. In view of the discussions made above and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be modified. 13. Accordingly, compensation payable to the respondents-claimants is worked out as under: (i) Age of the deceased 22 years (ii) Annual Salary of the deceased Rs. 3,000 x Rs. 12,000 = Rs. 36,000/- (iii) 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs. 36,000 - 1/2 (Rs. 18,000) = Rs. 18,000/- (iv) Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma’s Case 18 (v) Loss of dependency Rs. 18,000 x 18 = Rs. 3,24,000/- (vi) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of Dependency Rs. 3,84,000/- (vii) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards Conventional Heads Rs. 17,000/- (viii) Total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,84,000 + Rs. 17,000 = Rs. 4,01,000/- (ix) Amount reduced by this Court Rs. 3,84,000 - Rs. 3,24,000 = Rs. 60,000/- 14. On the basis of discussions made above, we are of the considered view that respondents-claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- + Rs. 17,000/- = Rs. 3,84,000 + Rs. 17,000 = Rs. 4,01,000/- (ix) Amount reduced by this Court Rs. 3,84,000 - Rs. 3,24,000 = Rs. 60,000/- 14. On the basis of discussions made above, we are of the considered view that respondents-claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- + Rs. 17,000/- = Rs. 3,41,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 15. If a portion of the amount has already been released in favour of the respondents-claimants, the same shall be adjusted accordingly. 16. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.