Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2375 (ALL)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Raj Narayan

2019-10-18

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Jaunpur, in MACP No. 191 of 2006 (Raj Narayan and another vs. Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC Ltd., Mau, Depo and others) by which the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,12,200/-with 6% simple interest per annum. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and awarded, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the judgment is against the evidence on record, based on erroneous finding on rash and negligent driving, the driver of the offending bus was not having legal and effective driving license at the time of accident and the deceased himself was negligent and the learned tribunal has considered the wrong multiplier and a deduction of 2/3 was not made. 4. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has submitted that admittedly the deceased was of 18 years old and was bachelor and, therefore, a deduction of 50% should have been made. 5. It is admitted fact that the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident and as per Rules, 50% of the total income was bound to be deducted against his personal expenses. The other argument is about driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal found that UPSRTC submitted the driving license which was valid on the date of accident. 6. On the contrary, from the side of Insurance Company, the report of surveyor was filed but the same was not proved and, therefore, the learned Tribunal decided that the driver of the offending bus was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. As such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding. 7. It appears from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the notional income per day was determined as Rs. 100/-and it was also taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal that the deceased could get such income for 24 days in a month and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased was determined to be Rs. 2400/-per month, which means the annual income must be Rs. 2,8,800/-. 100/-and it was also taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal that the deceased could get such income for 24 days in a month and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased was determined to be Rs. 2400/-per month, which means the annual income must be Rs. 2,8,800/-. Therefore, the income on the basis of which the amount of compensation has been assessed is not at all in higher side. 8. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 against the personal expenses. Since, the deceased was bachelor, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the deduction should have been made of 50%, therefore, applying the principle of deduction, the annual income for the purpose of determination of compensation will be Rs. 14,400/-. 9. The deceased was aged about 18 years and the learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, whereas, in view of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 18 should have been available in his age. The Supreme Court has laid down as below :- “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. The above view has further been affirmed on the point of multiplier by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Applying the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation reaches to Rs. 2,59,200/-. 11. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that a proceeding before the Tribunal is in the nature of inquiry in which a very few thing is required to be established. Applying the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation reaches to Rs. 2,59,200/-. 11. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that a proceeding before the Tribunal is in the nature of inquiry in which a very few thing is required to be established. The Court has observed as under :- "Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased." 12. In view of judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-. Rs. 3000/-has been awarded in the head of loss of love and affection. Adding all the amounts, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,77,200/-. 13. In view of above, the impugned awarded compensation by the learned Tribunal appears to be in higher side and the same is liable to be reduced to Rs. 2,77,200/-with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. With the above modification, the appeal is finally disposed of. Interim order if any shall stand vacated. 15. The amount of Rs. 25000/-deposited at the time of filing of affidavit shall be remitted back to the learned Tribunal to be adjusted against the awarded amount. 16. Office is directed to communicate the certified copy of the order to the learned court below for necessary compliance.