Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 39 (JK)

Simple Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2021-02-25

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants, who are wife and husband respectively, met with the same accident and got injured. They have challenged their respective awards both dated 11.07.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban (for short the Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation. Both the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant-Simple Devi and her husband, Nasib Singh had preferred their claim petitions before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation due to injuries suffered by them in a road accident on 26.07.2015 at Devsol Morh NHW-IA, Ramban. Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company contested the said claim petitions and the learned Tribunal vide two different awards each dated 11.07.2020 awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,24,800/- and 14,87,359/- in favour of the appellants Simple Devi and Nasib Singh respectively under the following heads: center Simple Devi 1. Purchase of medicine/Hospital charges etc. Rs. 10,000/- 2. Transport/food/attendant Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of Income Rs. 6000/- 4. Pain suffering Rs. 25,000/- 5. Loss of future earnings Rs. 2,68,800/- Total Rs. 3,24,800/- Nasib Singh 1. Purchase of medicine/Hospital charges etc. Rs. 4,61,359/- 2. Transport/food/attendant Rs. 50,000/- 3. Loss of Income Rs. 12,000/- 4. Pain suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Loss of future earnings Rs. 8,64,000/- Total Rs. 14,87,359/- 3. The appellant Simple Devi in the appeal has stated that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 6000/- per month, whereas the fact remains that the income of the appellant stands fully established as Rs.10,000/- per month and further that the learned Tribunal has also wrongly assessed loss of future earning by deducting one-third of the monthly income towards personal income as the said deduction is not permissible in injury cases. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant compensation on account of increase in future prospects. It is also stated that the appellant-Simple Devi has suffered from paraplegia of the body and she will require two attendants throughout her life as the appellant is not able to move/walk anymore. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount under the head pain and suffering as the appellant is still under treatment, as such, the appellant has prayed that the present award may kindly be enhanced. 4. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount under the head pain and suffering as the appellant is still under treatment, as such, the appellant has prayed that the present award may kindly be enhanced. 4. Though the appellant, Simple Devi in the memo of appeal has raised various grounds for enhancement of compensation, however, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has restricted her claim to the following three grounds only : 1. That the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted one-third of the income of the appellant towards the personal expenses as the said principle is not applicable in the injury cases. 2. That the learned Tribunal has failed to grant compensation on account of increase in future prospects and; 3. The learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 rather the multiplier 18 should have been applied in the case of appellant. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Jughal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the appellant, Simple Devi, being a house wife, should have been taken as Rs. 5000/- per month. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has deducted one-third of the income from the personal income of the injured-appellant while calculating the compensation and this principle is not applicable in the case of the injury cases but applies only in death cases, so the deduction of one-third by the learned Tribunal is absolutely wrong. As far as, the income of Rs. 6000/- determined by the learned Tribunal has not been challenged by the Insurance Company, so the income of the appellant cannot be considered as Rs. 5,000/- per month as impressed upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, particularly when it was stated that she was also doing tailoring business. As far as, the income of Rs. 6000/- determined by the learned Tribunal has not been challenged by the Insurance Company, so the income of the appellant cannot be considered as Rs. 5,000/- per month as impressed upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, particularly when it was stated that she was also doing tailoring business. The Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company v. Praney Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has held that the future prospects are also required to be considered for the purpose of grant of compensation and since the injured is a house wife, so with a passage of time and keeping in view the value of her contribution and also that she was performing the job of stitching, the principle of 40 per cent increase in the income as applicable in the case of self employed persons, shall be applicable in the case of appellant as well. The appellant was 23 years of age at the time of accident. As per the mandate of decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier applicable is 18. 8. In view of for all what has been discussed above, the loss of income of the appellant is as under : Monthly income 6,000/- Increase of 40% on the income 40%x6000=2400 6000+2400=8400 Annual income 8400x12=1,00,800/- Disability 35% Actual yearly income 35% of 1,00,800= 35,280 Applied multiplier 18 Loss of future income 35,980x18=6,35,040/- 9. In respect of appellant, Nasib Singh, the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.12000/- per month, whereas the fact remains that the income of the appellant stands fully established as Rs.25,000/- per month. Rest all the grounds taken in memo of appeal are identical to those raised by appellant Simple Devi. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also restricted the grounds in respect of appellant Nasib Singh as in the case of appellant Simple Devi. 11. On the contrary, Mr. Jughal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the appellant, Nasib Singh should have been considered as Rs. 8,000/- per month instead of Rs. 12,000/-. 12. 11. On the contrary, Mr. Jughal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the appellant, Nasib Singh should have been considered as Rs. 8,000/- per month instead of Rs. 12,000/-. 12. A perusal of the awards reveals that the learned Tribunal has deducted one-third of the income from the personal income of the injured-appellant while calculating the compensation and this principle is not applicable in the case of the injury cases but applies only in death cases so the deduction of one-third by the learned Tribunal is absolutely wrong. So far as the income of the appellant as Rs. 12000/- per month determined by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the Insurance Company by way of appeal so no fault can be found with the same. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Praney Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that the future prospects are also required to be considered for the purpose of grant of compensation and since the injured was working as plumber, so he falls within the category of self-employed, the principle of 40 per cent increase in the income is applicable in the case of self employed persons. The appellant was 27 years of age at the time of accident. As per the mandate of decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier applicable is 17. 13. In view of for all what has been discussed above, the loss of income of the appellant, Nasib Singh is as under : Monthly income 12,000/- Increase of 40% on the income 40%x12000=4800 12000+4800=16,800 Annual income 16800x12=2,01,600 Disability 60% Actual yearly income 60% of 2,01,600= 1,20,960/- Applied multiplier 17 Loss of future income 1,20,960x17=20,56,320/- 14. The appeals are partially allowed and both the awards under heading “loss of future earnings” are modified to the extent stated herein above. The rest of part of the awards shall remain intact. Both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. However, the respondent No. 1 shall deposit the enhanced amount before this Court within a period of eight weeks in both the appeals and on deposit thereof, the same shall be released in favour of the respective appellants after due verification. 15. Disposed of.