Allahabad High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Santosh Kumari And Ors. on 23 August, 2023
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:56241 Court No. - 19 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 58 of 2016 Appellant :- The National Insurance Company Ltd.Thru Regional Manager Respondent :- Smt. Santosh Kumari And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Satyajit Banerji Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Singh,M.K. Dixit,Sameer Kumar Upadhyay ****** Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2015 passed in Claim Petition No.506 of 2013 whereby in a death case a sum of Rs.27,55,648/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the quantum as awarded by the Tribunal is on a much higher side as there was no loss of income since the claimant no.1 was granted a compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband. It is thus submitted that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring to consider this aspect of the matter and has granted the compensation which is not consonance with the settled legal principles and as such the award deserves to be set aside.
4. Shri Dixit learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the compensation as granted is just and appropriate. Moreover, there is no provision for making any deduction in case if the claimants got compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband which has noting to do with the compensation to be awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
5. It is further submitted that the Tribunal is only entitled to deduct such statutory deductions which may applicable but other than that there is no requirement in law to make any deduction towards grant of compassionate appointment and treating it as a no loss of income. and the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to the law.
6. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.
7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be relevant to notice the few facts giving rise to the instant appeal.
8. The claimant-respondents instituted Claim Petition No.506 of 2013 with the averments that Lal Bahadur on 21.03.2012 at around 7.15 P.M. was standing on his side of the road in Gram Mubarakpur Badheh Thana Kothi, Tehsil Haidargarh, District Barabnki and at the relevant time the motorcycle bearing number UP 41/Q 0770 was being driven rashly and negligently by Sunil Kumar and hit Lal Bahadur who received grievous injuries and while under treatment he expired on 24.03.2013 at Trauma Centre Medical College, Lucknow. It is in this context that an FIR was also lodged bearing Case Crime No.214 of 2012 and the claim petition was also filed. The claim petition was contested by Sunil Kumar who took the general plea that no accident had taken place but also stated that his motorcycle was duly insured and he had a valid and subsisting driving licence. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement taking the general pleas and in light thereof, the Tribunal framed four issues.
9. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Sunil Kumar and also found that the motorcycle was duly insured and Sunil Kumar had valid and subsisting driving licence. It when went on to compute the compensation and found that Lal Bahadur at the time of his death was about 47 years of age and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.21,760/-, therefore, keeping in mind the number of dependents, amount was deducted towards personal expenditure and adopting multiplier of 13 and adding some amount towards conventional heads a total sum of Rs.27,55,648/- was awarded alongwith 7%, it is this award dated 21.10.2015 which is under challenge.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed on the fact that after the death of Lal Bahadur, his wife has been granted compassionate appointment and was able to earn and thus there was no real loss of income and in the aforesaid circumstances, the grant of compensation by the Tribunal is on the much higher side.
11. This Court finds that the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is apparently misconceived. The law has been very well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013 7 SCC 476, Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and others (2014) 13 SCC 22, Kalpanaraj and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2015) 2 SCC 764, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shashi Sharma and others (2016) 9 SCC 627 and Sebastiani Lakra and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another (2019) 17 SCC 465.
12. This issue has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Deepali Pal and others 2015 (83) LCD 1933 and this Court has also noticed the aforesaid in FAFO No.260 of 2000, National Insurance Comapny Vs. Smt. Sunita Devi and others decided on 11.07.023 and also in Renu Yadav and another Vs. M/s Central Transport Company U/G Gulam Sarver and others, FAFO No.627 of 2012 decided on 04.04.2019 and Smt. Keshana W/o Late Rajju Vs. Smt. Suman Devi W/o Mukesh Kumar Bhadvaria, FAFO No.677 of 2010 decided on 26.03.2019.
13. In view of the settled legal position which has been noticed by the Court with the aid of the judgment as enumerated hereinabove, this Court finds that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is misconceived and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14. Before parting, this Court notices that a large number of appeals arising out of motor accident claims cases are pending before this Court and many of them have been filed by the Insurance Companies. In light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court, to name a few, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Company Ltds. Vs. Nanu Ram 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another 2019 SCC OnLine SC 195 and Anita Sharma and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another (2021) SCC 171, it would be seen that practically large portions of the disputed areas have been clarified by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. The scope of contest is in a narrow parameters. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is time that the Insurance Companies must undertake an exercise to periodically screen the pending appeals specially which have been filed on the issue of quantum and must take a conscious decision with help of their legal departments/counsel as to whether to pursue the appeals or to take appropriate measures so that the matters can be given a quitous, in light of the decisions and the position of law which have been clarified and settled by the Apex Court and the High Courts.
15. In this way, not only the precious time of Courts can be saved which can be utilized for other important matters but the claimants will also be able to get their dues expeditiously and the Insurance Company will also be able to save the collateral costs of increase payments towards interest.
16. Even though Lok Adalats are being held at frequent intervals yet there is no encouraging contribution from the Insurance Companies and it would be in the fitness of things that the Insurance Companies start taking re-look and re-consider regarding pending appeals and to illustrate the point in question, the instant appeal is one such glaring example.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed and as a token, a cost of Rs.2500/- is being imposed which shall be payable by the Insurance Company with the State Legal Services Authority within 30 days from today and the receipt shall also be placed before the Tribunal. In case if the amount is not paid, the Tribunal shall recover the same. Any amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimant-respondents and any amount still outstanding as per the award with uptodate interest shall be paid within a period of 60 days from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the Authority. The record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith.
Order Dated:-23.08.2023 ank/-