Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 224 (JK)

Rama Choudhary v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2019-04-12

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. A short but interesting question that has arisen for determination in this appeal is that what should be the relevant multiplier to be used as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., III (2009) ACC 708 (SC) : VI (2009) SLT 663 : 162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC) : 2009 (3) SC 487, where the age of the deceased-victim of motor vehicular accident is more than 50 years and less than 51 years? 2. The contextual facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may be briefly noticed. 3. On 20.5.2014, at about 2.30 p.m., a motor vehicular accident took place near Digdol Tehsil and District Ramban under the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ramban due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Passenger Bus) bearing registration No. JK02AJ-3547 by its driver. In the accident, apart from others, Sh. Kulwant Singh also succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident. The appellant No. 1-Rama Choudhary is wife and appellant No. 2 is minor son of late Charanjeet Singh, who was one of the claimant along with appellant Nos. 3 to 5 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamrm (for brevity "the Tribunal"). The predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, late Charanjeet Singh was son of the deceased. The appellant No. 3 is mother, appellant No. 4 is daughter and appellant No. 5 is wife of the deceased. The dependents of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants") preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed a compensation of Rs. 52,79,352. The Tribunal, after holding the trial, ultimately found the appellants entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 30,99,400 as compensation. For the purposes of computing the compensation and applicability of the relevant multiplier, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 50 years and 10 months falling in the age group of (51 to 55) and, accordingly, applied the multiplier of 11 as tabulated in Sarla Vermel's case (supra). 30,99,400 as compensation. For the purposes of computing the compensation and applicability of the relevant multiplier, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 50 years and 10 months falling in the age group of (51 to 55) and, accordingly, applied the multiplier of 11 as tabulated in Sarla Vermel's case (supra). The only ground on which the award impugned has been assailed by the appellants is that the deceased, at the time of accident, was 50 years and 10 months old and, therefore, for the purposes of applicability of the multiplier as indicated in the table in Sarla Verma's case (supra) read with para 21 of the judgment, the deceased should have been taken to be falling in the age group of (46 to 50) and, therefore, the multiplier of 13 should have been applied and the Tribunal committed an error by taking the age of the deceased falling in the age group of (51 to 55) and applying the multiplier of 11 for making additions of income for future prospects. Table in Sarla Verma's case and paragraph 21 thereof, which are relevant for present discussion are reproduced hereunder: Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column in the Table in II Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Upto 15 yrs. - - - 15 20 15 to 20yrs. 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25yrs. 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30yrs. 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35yrs. 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40yrs. 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45yrs. 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50yrs. 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55yrs. 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60yrs. 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65yrs. 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65yrs. 5 05 05 5 5 4. 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45yrs. 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50yrs. 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55yrs. 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60yrs. 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65yrs. 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65yrs. 5 05 05 5 5 4. Per contra, the respondent-insurance company has taken the stand that since the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, was more than 50 years and, therefore, for the purposes of operative multiplier to be used for working out the loss of dependency, the Tribunal correctly took the age of the deceased between 51 to 55 years. 5. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma and Another, III (2015) SLT 477 : 11 (2015) ACC 76 (SC) : 2015 (9) SCC 150 , whereas learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company relies on a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Nos. 4 & 5, Kandasamy Mudali Street, Ranipet v. Vasantha and Others, 2010 (2) T.N.M.A.C. 278 and a Single Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Maltiben Ramanbhai Patel and Ors. v. Ashokbhai J. Patel and Ors., I (2014) ACC 97 (Guj.) : 2015 ACJ 1133 . 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that having regard to the established fact that the deceased, at the time of his accident, was 50 years and 10 months old, for the purposes of applying operative multiplier as indicated in the table in Sarla Verma's case (supra) read with para 21 of the judgment, the deceased, in the instant case, would fall in the age group of (46 to 50). That being so, it is the multiplier of 13, which would be applicable and not the multiplier of 11, which has been applied by the Tribunal for computing the loss of dependency. This is so, because the deceased, in the instant case, had only completed 50th year of his age and was yet to complete 51st year. By no stretch of reasoning, the deceased can be held to be of the age of 51 years at the time of his accident. This is so, because the deceased, in the instant case, had only completed 50th year of his age and was yet to complete 51st year. By no stretch of reasoning, the deceased can be held to be of the age of 51 years at the time of his accident. In such situation, to place the deceased in the age group of (51 to 55), would be totally irrational and illogical. This is how, the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants has understood the issue. Though the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench in the aforesaid case differed on the issue of additions required to be made towards future prospects in the case of self-employed or fixed wages for computing the just and fair compensation but the decision on other points was unanimous. In paragraph No. 17, the Supreme Court adopted the multiplier of 14 in the case of a deceased, who was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 46 years, but the Supreme Court found that he had only completed 45 years and, therefore, the High Court had rightly adopted the multiplier of 14, which is applicable to the age group of (41 to 45). The facts of the case decided by the Supreme Court squarely cover the case in hand. For expediency, paragraph No. 17 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 16,82,310 (Rs. 1,20,165 x 14)." 7. In view of the settled position of law adumbrated hereinabove and the unequivocal view taken by the Supreme Court, the contrary view contained in the judgment of Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court relied upon by the respondents is no longer a good law to be followed. 8. 16,82,310 (Rs. 1,20,165 x 14)." 7. In view of the settled position of law adumbrated hereinabove and the unequivocal view taken by the Supreme Court, the contrary view contained in the judgment of Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court relied upon by the respondents is no longer a good law to be followed. 8. I have gone through both the judgments cited at bar by the learned Counsel for the respondents-insurance company but could not find any raison d'etre for taking the view that in the case of victim, who was 50 years and 10 months at the time of his death, he should be considered to be falling in the age group (51 to 55) attracting the multiplier of 11. That apart, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in India including this Court. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the question formulated is answered as under: That as indicated in the table in Sarla Verma's case (supra) read with para 21 of the judgment, the operative multiplier to be used in the case, where the victim of accident (deceased) is more than 50 years and less than 51 years would be 13 and the deceased shall be taken to be falling in the age group of (46 to 50) and not in the age group of (51 to 55). It is the completed year of the age of the deceased, which is required to be considered for placing him in the particular age group as indicated in Sarla Verma's case (supra). 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, the deceased had completed his 50th year of age and was yet to complete his 51st year and, thus, the Tribunal should have taken the deceased as falling in the age group of (46 to 50) and, accordingly, applied the operative multiplier of 13 for the purposes of computing the compensation. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the position of law in proper perspective and, thus, committed an error, as a result whereof, the right of the appellants to receive just and fair compensation has been impacted prejudicially. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent that instead of applying the multiplier of 11, in the present case, multiplier of 13 is deemed to be appropriate. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent that instead of applying the multiplier of 11, in the present case, multiplier of 13 is deemed to be appropriate. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 13, total loss of dependency of the deceased would come to Rs. 35,80,200 (22,950 x 12 x 13). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads does not require any modification. 12. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to a compensation in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs.35,80,200 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 Loss of Estate Rs.15,00/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,00/- Total Rs.36,50,200 The compensation award is, accordingly, modified to the aforesaid extent.