Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Smt. Shashi Prabha And Others on 5 February, 2020
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 30 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 847 of 2006 Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thr.Manager Technical Respondent :- Smt. Shashi Prabha And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Narain Misra Counsel for Respondent :- J.K.Shukla with Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 256 of 2007 Appellant :- Swaminath Shukla Respondent :- Smt.Shashi Prabha And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jay Krishna Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Prakash Srivastava,J.N. Mishra,Rakesh Kr. Modanwal with Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 678 of 2008 Appellant :- Smt. Shashi Prabha And 4 Ors. Respondent :- Swami Nath Shukla And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Gupta,Mukesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- .,J.K.Shukla,J.N. Mishra,T.J.S. Makkar Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Narain Misra, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sri Jay Krishna Shukla, learned counsel for the vehicle-owner and Sri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the claimant.
2. There are three First Appeals From Order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and order/award dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge Court, No. 4 Pratapgarh. The details of above three First Appeal From Orders are given below:-
(i) First Appeal From Order no. 847 of 2006, preferred by United India Insurance Company Limited,
(ii) First Appeal From Order no. 256 of 2007, preferred by owner of the vehicle,
(iii) First Appeal From Order no. 678 of 2008, preferred by the claimant.
3. The factual matrix in all three cases is the same that on 09.10.2004, one Sri. Gulab Chandra who was driving a motor-cycle was hit by the speeding Marshal Jeep bearing No. U.P. 70 V 5655, driving rashly and negligently due to which Sri Gulab Chandra had fallen on the road and the jeep driver ran away crushing him as a result of which Sri Gulab Chandra got grievous injuries and with the help of local resident and his nephew he was taken to District Hospital on the way he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of the death, deceased Sri Gulab Chandra was about 43 years of age and having good health. Deceased Sri Gulab Chandra was having his own shop of Urea fertilizer in Derwa Bazar and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/- per month.
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 847 OF 2006 filed by United India Insurance Company
4. The First Appeal From Order No. 847 is preferred by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the order/award dated 10.08.2006, mainly on two grounds which are as follows:-
(i) The quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and order/award dated 10.08.2006 is to be set aside and modify the same in terms of the Schedule 2 under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, wherein in absence of any proof of income of the deceased as per the Scheduled, the income shall be determined as Rs. 15,000 per annum, whereas the Tribunal in its award has determined the income @ of 6,000/- per month which comes to Rs. 72,000/- per annum.
(ii) There is no direct evidence of proof of income of the deceased Sri Gulab Chandra
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding in the award pertaining to determination of income i.e. Rs. 6,000 per month, which comes to Rs. 72,000/- per annum is in pursuance of the evidence adduced by the claimant i.e. Insurance Premium Receipt namely Pradarshak 30 (ga), Telephone Bills as Pradarshak 31 (ga), Copy of the Motor Cycle Certificate as Pradarshak 26 (ga), Licence for the sale of Urea as Pradarshak 32 (ga)/3 and the receipts of purchase of Urea from Devendra Kumar Mahadev Prasad amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- as Pradarshak 32 (ga)/1 to 32 (ga)/35. All these documents which have been enclosed was uptill March 2003, whereas the accident took place on 09.10.2003 in which Sri Gulab Chandra had died. The licence issued in favour of the deceased for sale of Urea was for the period since 15.07.2000 to 31.03.2003. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since 01.03.2003, till the date of death of Sri Gulab Chandra i.e. on 09.10.2003, but no evidence was adduced by the claimants that after March 2003, whether deceased was employed or how he was earning his livelihood and there is nothing on the record to show the monthly income of deceased.
6. Learned counsel has further contended that at the most as per the judgment of the Apex Court, if there is no proof of income then the calculation should be treated as Rs. 3,000/- per month which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has contended as follows:-
(i) There is no mistake in determining the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month mainly for the reason that the Apex Court in catena of decisions have already held that minimum income of a person who is unemployed or where there is no direct proof of income shall not be less than 6,000/- per month.
(ii) The evidence which is on the record clearly establishes that the deceased was paying the insurance of Rs. 1,600/- approximately, since 25.03.1987, that was much prior to his death.
(iii) There is no illegality or perversity in appreciation of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal while calculating the loss to the claimants @ Rs. 6,000/- per month.
8. After perusal of the records, it is found that the Tribunal in its judgment/award dated 10.08.2006 has determined the monthly income of the deceasesd as Rs. 6,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third against the personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum and the compensation was calculated by the Tribunal as Rs. 48,000/- per annum.
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 256 OF 2007 filed by Owner
9. The First Appeal from Orders No. 256 of 2007 is preferred by the owner of the vehicles with a delay of few months but the same has already been condoned by this Court vide its order dated 30.07.2017. In the present First Appeal From Order an application along with an affidavit under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was also filed enclosing the driving licence of the driver Rakesh Kumar Yadav who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The reason indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C for leading additional evidence before this Court that the appellant-owner of the vehicle had never ever received the summons from the Tribunal and the award has been given ex-parte without providing any opportunity to defend before the Tribunal. In support of the averment made, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the lower Court record pertaining to order-sheets of different dates dated 27.09.2004, 12.04.2005, 11.05.2005, 13.07.2005, 05.04.2005 and 23.04.2005.
10. It has further been contended that the Tribunal suddenly passed an order in absence of any thing on record that the claimant had taken any step and notice was sent by the registered post and proceeded ex-parte. Hence, the appellant has no other option except to move an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. before this Court.
11. Learned counsel representing owner/appellant has contended that in the award the finding by the Tribunal for holding the licence invalid by giving the finding that on the licence filed by the complainant the name of the driver shown different. The said finding in the award has been given without providing any opportunity to the owner/appellant and solely relied upon the licence filed by the claimants. Whereas, the licence in favour of the driver of the vehicle is valid licence and in support reliance has been placed on the photocopy of the licence filed along with an affidavit in support of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. where only the name i.e. Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav is written.
12. It has further been contended that in the finding that there is no fitness certificate of the vehicle on the record for plying the vehicle is perverse as per sub-Section 1 of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which provides defence available to the Insurance Company for denying the payment but in defence the requirement of fitness certificate is not available with the Insurance Company.
13. Learned Counsel further contended that as per the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court, if the vehicle is for private use and not for commercial then fitness certificate is not required.
14. At this stage, this Court asked the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company whether Insurance Company would like to file objection against the applicant under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has given a statement on the basis of instruction that there is no need to file any objection against the application for the reason licence enclosed along with application has already been verified from the Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as "R.T.O."), Kalayan Mumbai and as per the report of the R.T.O., Kalayan, Mumbai, licence was issued in the name of Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav and the licence number filed before the Tribunal by the claimant and the owner before this Court is the same.
15. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was unable to dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the owner/appellant pertaining to the requirement of fitness certificate of the vehicle.
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 678 of 2008 filed by the Claimant
16. The First Appeal From Order is preferred by the claimant with a delay of about two years and neither the delay has been condoned nor the First Appeal From Order has been admitted till date. After examining the affidavits filed along with delay condonation application the reasons indicated in the affidavit are satisfactory, hence, the delay is condoned and the Appeal is admitted.
17. The First Appeal From Order has been preferred by the claimant mainly on the following grounds, which are as under:-
"(i) The multiplier of 10 has wrongly been made by the Tribunal, it shall be 14 as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transoport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC, 121.
(ii) Claim for future prospect as per Para 61(iv) and (viii) of the National Insurance Company Vs. Prannay Sethi (2017), 16 SCC, 680.
18. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that the evidence which has been adduced before the Tribunal corroborate with the determination of income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and there is no illegality in the same. He further submitted that as per the determination in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Prannay Sethi, (2017), 16 SCC, 680 the claimants are entitled for additional 25 percent as the age of the deceased was 43 years.
19. Learned counsel for the claimant has further drawn the attention of this Court that for consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 2,000/- each, which is not as per the determination provided by the Apex Court in Para 61(iv) and (viii) of the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi, (2017), 16 SCC, 680, wherein the Apex Court has held that loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
20. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the claimant has further relied the judgment of Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others, (2019) (4) T.A.C. 724 (S.C.), and wherein the benefit as per the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi, (2017), 16 SCC, 680 was given.
21. On the contrary, learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company has submitted that in absence of any proof of income the claimant is entitled for compensation as per Schedule II under Section 163 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and at the most Rs. 3,000/- per month has been laid down by the Apex Court and not more than that. An addition of 25 percent is admissible in the cases where there is direct proof of established income and in the present case there is no direct proof of established income of the deceased and no evidence was adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal. Hence the claimants are not entitled for an addition of 25 percent. At the same time learned counsel representing Insurance Company has very fairly conceded that as far as loss of estate and loss of consortium and funeral expenses are concerned, he has no objection if the same shall be given as per the determination given by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi (Supra).
22. Learned counsel for the Insurance-company has opposed the applicability of judgment in the case of Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others, (2019) (4) T.A.C. 724 (S.C.) in the present case for the reason that the deceased in case (Supra) was a carpenter and self-employed, whereas in the present case no evidence was adduced before the Tribunal that after March 2003, the deceased was earning and hence the determination in the case of Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others, 2019 (4) T.A.C. 724 (S.C.) is per incuriam and not applicable.
23. In reply the learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that in Chameli Devi case, the deceased expired in the year 2001 and the Apex Court had considered the per day wages of an employees as Rs. 200/- meaning hereby in the case of Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others, (2019) (4) T.A.C. 724 (S.C.), there was no proof of established income.
24. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant that multiplier should be of 14 and in support thereto the reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009) 6 SCC, 121 . The Apex Court has provided a chart of multiplier according to the age of the deceased and as per the chart the claimants are entitled for the multiplier of 14 as the age of the deceased was 43 years and the same was not disputed by the learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company.
25. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsels for all the respective parties representing the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle, the claimant and after examining the lower Court records, the submission advanced by the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company that income which has been determined in the award is against the statutory provision i.e. Schedule II under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and against the judgment of the Apex Court, wherein it has been provided that in absence of any proof of income, the income should be Rs. 3,000/- per month which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum and hence the award dated 10.08.2006 is to be set aside and modified to that extent, the said contention is not acceptable for the following reasons:-
26. Firstly, the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) enhanced the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 3,000 per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Apex Court assessing the income as Rs. 200/- per day being a carpenter. The relevant extract of judgment in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) is reproduced below:-
Para (ii):- This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,250/- per month but since no positive proof of income was led, the income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was taken as notional income. This obviously is not a correct position of law. The High Court accepted the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to us, the income assessed by the High Court is on the lower side. The accident happened on 2nd January, 2001. The Tribunal and the High Court held that no proof of income has been produced to show that the deceased was alleged to be a carpenter. We fail to understand what proof can lead except to lead oral evidence.
Para (iii):- Keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 2001 and the deceased was a carpenter, it would not be unjustified to assess his income at Rs. 200/- per day. It is true that carpenter may not get work every day, hence, we assess the income at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Adding 40% for future prospects i.e. Rs. 2,000/-, the total income works out to Rs. 7,000/- Deducting 1/5th for personal expenses, keeping in view a large number of dependents, the datum figure comes out to Rs. 5,600/- per month or Rs. 67,200/- per year. Applying multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs. 10,75,200/- . Rs. 70,000/- is added towards other non-conventional heads as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, (2017) 16 S.C.C. : 20117 (4) T.A.C. 673. The total compensation comes out to Rs. 11,45,200/-
27. Secondly, as per the evidence adduced the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month against the claimed income of Rs. 8,000/- per month. The evidence which is on the record i.e. Insurance premium receipts namely Pradarshk 30 (ga) clearly establishes that the deceased was paying the insurance of Rs. 1,600/- approximately since 25.03.1987 i.e. much prior to his death and the period of licence for running a Urea shop since 15.07.2002 to 31.3.2003.
28. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal and in the light of the judgment in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra), the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased.
29. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the claimant for payment of additional 25 per cent for future prospect, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as per the full Bench decision of Apex Court in the case of Prannay Sethi (Supra), wherein the Apex Court after the analysis, the conclusion is in para 61(iv) and (viii) of the judgment. The relevant portion which is applicable in the present case is reproduced below:-
"(iv) In case the deceases was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in the every three years."
30. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) has given the benefit as per the judgment in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi (Supra),. After going through the judgment of the Apex Court the submission raised in pursuance thereof and the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company has not disputed the same and hence as per the law laid down by the Apex Court the claimants are also entitled for the same benefit.
31. The contention of the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company that the judgments cited by the learned counsel representing the claimants in the case of Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others (Supra) is per incuriam.
32. The said submission of the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company is not acceptable for the reason that in the case of Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others (Supra), the Apex Court has given the benefit of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi (Supra), and the applicability of the Prannay Sethi (Supra) case is not disputed by the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company.
33. If the contention of learned counsel representing the Insurance Company is accepted by this Court then same would be in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of South Central Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union Vs. Yashodabai And Others, (2015) 2 SCC, 727, wherein it has been held that if the High Courts or Subordinate Courts took a different view, there would be total chaos reason being there would be no finality to any order passed by the Apex Court. The High Courts and the Subordinate Courts must follow the decision of the Apex Court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set aside.
34. The Apex Court in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works Private Limited and Another reported in AIR (1997) S.C. 2477 has laid down if the position in law is well settled as per the judicial pronouncement, taking a different view by the subordinate Courts including the High Courts clearly amount to judicial impropriety.
35. From the discussions made above, the First Appeal From Order No. 847 of 2006 filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed.
36. The First Appeal From Order No. 256 of 2007 preferred by the owner of the vehicle, the submission raised by the learned counsel representing the owner/appellant for allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. along with an affidavit. The reasons shown for allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. are satisfactory. After the perusal of the order-sheets of different dates showing that steps were never ever taken by the claimant and notice/summons were never ever served upon the owner of the vehicles and specially when the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the claimant as well as the Insurance Company after examining the lower Court's record and when the learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company has made a submission after examining the lower Court's record and has further made a submission that he has no objection in allowing the application. On the basis of instructions learned counsel representing the Insurance Company has also given a submission that the licnence filed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. has already been verified from the R.T.O., Kalayan, Mumbai and as per the report the licence is valid issued in favour of Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav. The Counsel representing the claimant has also made a submission that there is no objection in allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. along with an affidavit is hereby allowed.
37. From the perusal of the licence filed along with an affidavit in support of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., the licence is in the name of Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident on 09.10.2004 and when the same was supported by the statement given by the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company that the said licence got verified from the R.T.O., Kalyan, Mumbai and as per the report of the R.T.O., Kalayan, Mumbai the licence issued in favor of the Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, The finding given by the Tribunal in award dated 10.08.2006 to the extent of validity of the licence is not acceptable. The validity of the licence verified by the R.T.O., Kalayan, Mumbai, has not been disputed by the learned Counsel representing the claimants.
38. Hence finding to the effect of the invalid licence of the driver by the Tribunal in its award dated 10.08.2006 is set aside.
39. The finding of the Tribunal in the award dated 10.08.2006 pertaining to the absence of fitness certificate is not in consonance with the sub-Section 2 of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 which is reproduced below:-
"(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely :-
(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely -
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle-
(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or
(b) for organized racing and speed testing, or
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or
(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or
(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or
(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or
(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular."
40. From the perusal of the sub-Section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the fitness certificate of vehicle is not required as a defence to the Insurance Company to escape the liability from payment of compensation to the family of the deceased. The Counsel representing the Insurance Company and the claimants has failed to dispute to the fact that fitness certificate is not required for payment of compensation by fixing the liability of the Insurance Company for the purposes of payment of compensation.
41. The judgment relied by the learned counsel representing owner/appellant in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others, (2013) (2) T.AC. 361 (All.), wherein it has been held that if the vehicle is used for private service and not for another service or public vehicle, then fitness certificate is not required. The relevant portion of the above-mentioned judgment is reproduced below:-
"(4) The case of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the offending vehicle is a private service vehicle and, therefore, it is the transport vehicle and hence the fitness certificate is required for the said vehicle under Section 56 of the Act. Private service vehicle is defined by Section 2(33) of the Act (referred hereinabove). Only those motor vehicles, which carries persons for, or in connection with trade or business of the owner shall be considered as private service vehicle and not any other private service vehicle or public vehicle. Therefore, in order to cover the vehicle under the definition of private vehicle it is to be established that the vehicle is being used in connection with his trade or business by the vehicle owner.
(5) In the present case, it is not the case of the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was being used for carrying of the passengers for the purposes of his trade or business by the owner of the vehicle, therefore, it cannot be private service vehicle. In so far as the Transport Commissioner's circular is concerned, it cannot be read in isolation and it is to be read alongwith provisions of the Act. If it is read alongwith provisions of the Act, it comes down to, that only those vehicle having capacity of more than six persons, is required to have a fitness certificate, which is being used for carrying the passengers for, or in connection with, his trade or business by the owner of vehicle. Moreover, it is the settled principle of law that any circular, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act is not binding and cannot override the provisions of the Act."
42. Learned counsel representing the Insurance Company and the claimant has failed to dispute the legal position settled by the High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Pandey (Supra).
43. Under these circumstances, the finding in the award to the extent of fixing the liability of the owner on the above-mentioned case is hereby set aside and the First Appeal From Order No. 256 of 2007 is allowed to the extent of finding in the judgment and fixing the liability of the owner/appellant is set aside and the First Appeal From Order No. 256 of 2007 is hereby allowed.
44. As far as First Appeal From Order No. 678 of 2008 preferred by the claimant/appellant is concerned, from the discussion made above and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi (Supra) and Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Jivrail Mian and Others (Supra), the claimant is entitled for the benefit as provided in Para 61(IV) and (VIII) of the Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi (Supra). As per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (Supra), wherein the chart has been provided for applying the multiplier for determination of compensation and as per the same in the case of the claimants the Tribunal in its award has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10. Looking at the age of the deceased multiplier of 14 is applicable. The same has not been disputed by the Counsel representing the Insurance Company.
45. Hence to the extent of multiplier of 10 in the order/judgment of the Tribunal is hereby set aside.
46. Under these circumstances, the First Appeal From Order No. 678 of 2008 is allowed and modifed to the extent to which claimants are entitled are as follows:-
(i) Compensation with Multiplier (M-14) X Annual Income as shown in the Award has come to Rs. 48,000/- per annum (after deducting 1/3rd of the income against personal expenses) = Rs. 6,72,000/- (ii) 25 percent of future prospects be added i.e. Rs. 1,68,000/- (iii) Loss of estate i.e. Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium i.e. Rs. 40,000, funeral charges, i.e. Rs. 15,000, which comes to be Rs. 70,000/- Less Rs. 4,000 ( already determined by the Tribunal in its award for loss of consortium and funeral charges) = Rs. 66,000/-
Total = Rs. 6,72,000/- + Rs. 1,68,000/- + Rs. 66,000 = Rs. 9,06,000/-
47. Under these circumstances First Appeal From Order No. 678 of 2008 is hereby allowed and the order/award dated 10.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified in terms as specified above.
48. United India Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount within a period of two months from today after deducting the amount which has already been paid, if any, to the claimant failing which the interest will be paid as already determined by the Tribunal in its award dated 10.08.2006.
49. Office is directed to send the lower Court's record to the concerned Tribunal.
50. Copy of this judgment shall be placed in all the three First Appeals From Order separately.
Order Date:- 05.02.2020 Sachin