Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 251 (JK)

Sadika Bibi v. Ravinder Kumar

2022-05-19

SINDHU SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.12.2019, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption), Jammu (for short 'the Tribunal'), in claim petition titled 'Sadika Bibi & Ors. v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.'. 2. A claim petition was filed by Sadika Bibi and her two children before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Sh. Raj Ali on 04.01.2017 in a road accident. The deceased-Raj Ali (husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 and 3) on 04.01.2017 at 07:30 P.M., while walking on the roadside at Kartholi, Bari Brahmana on the National Highway, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK06-6695, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 towards Vijaypur hit the deceased causing his death. 3. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants') sought compensation on account of the death of the deceased, to the tune of Rs.56,50,000/- along with interest in their claim petition before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company resisted its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy at the time of the alleged accident. 4. The Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determining : (1) Whether the deceased has suffered has suffered a Road Traffic Accident on 4th day of January, 2017 around 07:30 P.M. at Kartholi, Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bari Brahmana involving the use of the offending vehicle (Maruti Car) bearing Registration No. JK06-6695 which caused him serious injuries and resulted in his death and whether that accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the respondent No. 1? OPP (2) Whether the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to claim and receive compensation on account of his death having occurred in the said motor vehicle accident? OPP (3) If the aforesaid issues are answered in the affirmative, what would be the amount of just compensation to be awarded to the claimants and which of the respondents would be liable to pay them that compensation? OPP (4) Whether the respondent No. l was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPP (4) Whether the respondent No. l was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? If yes, what would be its effect on the liability of the insurance company regarding the payment of compensation? OPR-3 (5) Whether the respondent No. l had used the offending vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If yes, what would be its effect on the liability of the insurance company regarding the payment of compensation? OPR-3 (6) the relief to which parties are entitled. 5. The claimants produced PW-Murad Ali and Sh. Parshotam Sharma as their witnesses. The respondent-Insurance Company, however, did not produce any witness in their support. 6. The Tribunal by way of the impugned award held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.42,52,570/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution till the date of its final realization. 7. The claimants are aggrieved of the impugned award primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to determine just, fair and proper compensation on account of 'loss of dependency' and the compensation awarded is not in accordance with the law laid down in "Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.". Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased-Raj Ali, at the time of his death was 42 years old, his date of birth was 05.04.1976, therefore, he falls in the age group of 41 to 45 years. The appropriate multiplier for calculating the compensation would be 14 which was also stated by the Tribunal but the Tribunal erroneously scaled down the multiplier by 2 units i.e., from 14 to 12, on the ground of uncertainties of life. It is urged that this has resulted in denying the claimants just and fair compensation in accordance with the settled law. 8. The Tribunal, thus, has erred in awarding compensation on the basis of multiplier of 12, whereas, as per the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier was 14. This has resulted in grant of inadequate compensation on account of 'loss of dependency' to the claimants. 9. In "Sarla Verma & Ors. 8. The Tribunal, thus, has erred in awarding compensation on the basis of multiplier of 12, whereas, as per the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier was 14. This has resulted in grant of inadequate compensation on account of 'loss of dependency' to the claimants. 9. In "Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.", 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Apex Court has held that the multiplier of 14 is to be applied and that is the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under : "....Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. 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. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the appropriate multiplier for computing the 'loss of dependency' in view of the age of the deceased i.e., 42 years is 14 and the Tribunal has erred in computing the compensation by applying the wrong multiplier of 12, which has resulted in denial of just and fair compensation to the claimants as per their entitlement. The deceased was working as Selection Grade Constable and was 42 years of age at the time of his death and his monthly salary at that time was Rs.34,477/-. It is submitted that the annual income of the deceased was not taxable as there was exemption of Income Tax up to Rs.4,50,000/- in the year 2016-17, thus, the computation of the compensation needs to be enhanced and would be as follows after modification:- 1. Monthly Income 34,477/- 2. Add 30% for future prospects (since the deceased was holding a permanent job) + 44,820/- 3. Less 1/3rd for personal expenses - 14,940/- 4. Monthly loss of dependency (44,820 - 14,940 = 29,880/-) 29,880/- 5. Annual dependency (29,880 x 12 = 3,58,560/-) 3,58,560/- 6. Multiplier applicable (for the age of 42 years) x14 7. Loss of dependency (3,58,560 x 14 = 50,19,840/-) 50,19,840/- 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 9. Loss of consortium to wife (as per "National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi" case would be 40,000/-) 40,000/- 10. Loss of consortium to two children (as per the Supreme Court judgment in "Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram" would be 80,000/-) 80,000/- 11. Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 51,69,840/- 11. The claimants are, thus, held entitled to Rs.51,69,480/- (as modified above) along with interest as already awarded by the Tribunal @ 7% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition till its realization, however, they would not be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- given by the Tribunal for the 'loss of love and affection'. It is submitted that the claimants have already received the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, they are held entitled to receive the enhanced compensation only with interest as per their share awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the award is accordingly modified.