Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2835 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Manoj Devi

2022-11-29

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2022
ORDER 1. The parties are agreed for disposal of both these appeals at the admission stage itself. Heard. 2. SBCMA No.6437/2019 has been filed by the Insurer challenging the award dated 08.08.2019 made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and Additional District and Session Judge, Fatehpur-Shekhawati, District-Sikar in Claim Case No.195/2016, as excessive one. 3. SBCMA No.1965/2020 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award amount. 4. The case and claim of the claimants is that late Rajendra Kumar died in a Motor Accident, which took place due to negligence of the Driver on 25.01.2016. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 30 years. He was well educated and qualified person and was running a Hostel and Mess as well as teaching the students in English subject at Global Carrier Institute, Navalgarh Road, Sikar and he was earning more than Rs.40,000/-per month. The claimants are widow, son and parents of the deceased. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.24,94,200/- as compensation. 5. In this appeal, the factum of accident, involvement of Scarpio bearing registration No.RJ-23-UB-7347 and its Insurance by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. covering the date of accident is not disputed. 6. The learned Tribunal did not accept the income of the deceased from the Global Carrier Institute as the said income was not shown in the Income Tax Return of the deceased filed in the case. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the findings in absence of contrary evidence on record. 7. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the Income Tax Return, last return being of the year 2013-14, wherein, net income was shown as Rs.1,49,706/-from the Hostel and Mess was accepted by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurer contends that Income Tax Return of the deceased for the period 2015-16 was also on the record but that was not considered by the Tribunal for the reason that it did not mention specifically about the running of Mess. 9. Learned Tribunal is specific that income of the year 2013-14 has not been disputed, therefore, the same is acceptable. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants submits that considering the income of the deceased as Rs.1,49,706/-, the monthly income should have been taken as 12,500/- and not Rs.12,000/- only. Therefore, multiplicand requires to be corrected accordingly. 11. 9. Learned Tribunal is specific that income of the year 2013-14 has not been disputed, therefore, the same is acceptable. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants submits that considering the income of the deceased as Rs.1,49,706/-, the monthly income should have been taken as 12,500/- and not Rs.12,000/- only. Therefore, multiplicand requires to be corrected accordingly. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants next contends that only Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium. Learned counsel contends that in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the consortium not only mean spousal consortium rather parental consortium and filial consortium are also covered thereunder and such claimants are also entitled for the loss of consortium. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants next contends that in Megma General Insurance (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses whereas the Tribunal herein has awarded only Rs.15,000/-. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurer contends that the Tribunal has awarded 7% interest whereas in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case only 6% interest was allowed. 14. The calculation of the award amount by the Tribunal stands corrected as follows:- 15. The Tribunal took Rs.12,000/- per month as income of the deceased. The same stands corrected as Rs.12,500/- based on same evidence. 16. The Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased and guidelines in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , therefore, the same requires no interference. 17. The Tribunal has considered the number of dependency on the deceased, which was four in number, therefore, correctly deducted 1/4th of income for personal expenses of the victim of the accident. 18. The Tribunal has paid Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. The same stands modified as Rs.25,000/-. 19. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.,40,000/- for loss of consortium, which is corrected as four 40,000s i.e. Rs.40,000/- for each of the four claimants, who are widow, son and parents of the deceased. 20. Accordingly, calculation would be Rs.12,500x12 years and further multiplied by 16 equal to 24 lakhs. Out of this amount 1/4th is deductible for personal expenses of the deceased. 20. Accordingly, calculation would be Rs.12,500x12 years and further multiplied by 16 equal to 24 lakhs. Out of this amount 1/4th is deductible for personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction, the amount comes to Rs.18 lakhs. Besides, the deceased would be entitled for 40% of the aforesaid amount for his future prospects. 21. The amount further stands added with Rs.7,20,000/- and the total is Rs.25,20,000/-. Besides the aforesaid, Rs.1,60,000/- is further payable for loss of consortium to the four claimants collectively and Rs.40,000/- individually. 22. Besides the aforesaid, the funeral expenses are enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss to the State and Rs.5,000/- for expenses in carrying the dead body. 23. These amounts require no interference. No plausible reason is there to reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal. 24. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of interest because no hard and fast rule can be fixed for grant of interest, only guiding factor is that the Tribunal should consider the rate of interest which the amount fetches, if deposited in any interest fetching Scheme of the Nationalised Bank. 25. The total payable compensation would be 25,20,000+1,60,000+45,000=2,725,000 along with awarded interest. Already paid amount shall be deducted. 26. With the aforesaid modification, SBCMA No.1965/2020 stands allowed and appeal of the Insurer bearing SBCMA No.6437/2019 stands dismissed.