Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 309 (HP)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Abhinav

2024-05-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. There is a very short controversy involved in these proceedings. Respondents No.1 and 2 before this Court filed claim petition No.44-S/2 of 2009 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla seeking compensation on account of the death of Smt. Namita Sharma, mother of respondent No.1 and wife of respondent No.2, who unfortunately lost her life in a bus accident. This claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 25.05.2015, in the following terms:- 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e. Rs. 25330+30%, 7600 i.e. monthly income Rs.32930x9 Rs.35,56,440/- 2) Loss of consortium i.e. spouse/husband Rs.1,00,000/- 3) Funeral charges Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.36,81,440/- 2. For completion of facts, it is necessary to mention that the Insurance Company preferred an appeal against the award passed by the learned Tribunal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the execution of the award was stayed by this Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Court on 27.05.2016. 3. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the claimants preferred an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the award on the ground that in Para-36 of the award, learned Tribunal had held that the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased was 13, but while making final calculations, in Para-38, erroneously multiplier of 9 was applied instead of 13. Said application was allowed by the learned Tribunal in terms of order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure P-3) without notice to the present petitioner and the award passed by the learned Tribunal was modified as following:- 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e. Rs. 25330+30%, 7600 i.e. monthly income Rs.32930x13 Rs.51,37,080/- 2) Loss of consortium i.e. spouse/husband Rs.1,00,000/- 3) Funeral charges Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.52,62,080 Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the present petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that besides other things, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the application filed under Section 152 of the CPC was allowed by the learned Tribunal at the back of the present petitioner without issuance of any notice to it. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that besides other things, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the application filed under Section 152 of the CPC was allowed by the learned Tribunal at the back of the present petitioner without issuance of any notice to it. As per the learned Senior Counsel, this seriously prejudiced the case of the Insurance Company as now the claimants were claiming the enhanced amount alongwith interest etc., which the petitioner was not liable to pay because (a) mistake if any was on the part of the Tribunal and(b) rectification of the said mistake was at the back of the petitioner. It is in this background, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be allowed, as prayed for. 5. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. He submits that there indeed was a typographical error that had crept in Para-38 of the original award, because, whereas, in Para-36 of the award, multiplier of 13 was held to be appropriate by the Tribunal, yet multiplier of 9 was applied by it. It was in this background that the application was filed for correction of the award, which was correctly allowed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, he submits that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the petition as well as the order under challenge. 7. A perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal demonstrates that taking into consideration the fact that the age of deceased Namita Sharma was 44 years, learned Tribunal held that the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the case was 13. However, when final calculations were made as to what amount the claimants were entitled to, the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 9 rather than 13. This mistake was corrected by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the application, which was filed in the year 2018 by the claimants though at the back of the present petitioner. However, when final calculations were made as to what amount the claimants were entitled to, the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 9 rather than 13. This mistake was corrected by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the application, which was filed in the year 2018 by the claimants though at the back of the present petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is disposed of by directing that though the correction, which has been carried out subsequently by the learned Tribunal by modifying the multiplier from 9 to 13 and thereafter, assessing amount payable to the claimants as per Para-38 of the award, calls for no interference, however, the amount as has been calculated in Para-38 of the award after carrying out the necessary correction shall be construed to be the amount as was originally payable to the claimants as on the date when the original award was announced and the liability of the Insurance Company shall be limited to the payment of this amount only, alongwith interest as per Para-45 of the award, and as the Insurance Company had preferred an appeal against the award, in which, the amount as earlier determined by the Tribunal was deposited by the Insurance Company with the Court, the interest on the enhanced amount also shall be payable by the Insurance Company till the said date only, which date, shall be deemed to be the date, on which, the Insurance Company deposited the enhanced amount also. Ordered accordingly. 8. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.