Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mr. Amrit Sarin vs Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain on 13 March, 2019
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
S.No.36
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
MA No.274/2017
IA No.1/2017
c/w
MA No.259/2017
MA No.252/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.247/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.254/2017, IA No.1/2019
MA No.261/2017
MA No.255/2017, IA Nos.1/2017 & 2/2017
MA No.245/2017
MA No.250/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.262/2017
MA No.243/2017
MA No.249/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.246/2017
MA No.248/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.258/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.256/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.265/2017
MA No.251/2017
MA No.260/2017
MA No.241/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.263/2017
MA No.240/2017, IA Nos.1/2017 & 1/2019
MA No.244/2017
MA No.242/2017, IA No.1/2017
MA No.257/2017, IA No.1/2017
Date of order: 26.04.2019
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Kewal Krishan and others.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Naseeb Chand and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Krishan Chand and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Neelma Devi and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Hans Raj and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Lali Ram and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Baldev Chand
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Gudwari Devi
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Bodh Raj and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Baldev Chand and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Madho Lal
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Mohd. Din
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 1 of 46
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Angrez Singh and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Sumona Devi and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Deep Kumar and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Tripta Kumari and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Revo Devi and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Lalita Devi and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Rehmat Ali
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Giasho Devi and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Prem Singh and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Karpal Singh and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Shakuntla Devi and ors.
The Oriental Insurance Co ltd. v. Chanchalo Devi and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Appearing counsel:
For the Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain, Advocate
Mr. H.C.Jalmeria, Advocate.
Mr. S.P.Bakshi, Advocate.
Mr. Sheikh Ayaz Hussain, Advocate.
1. Vide order dated 20.05.2017, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for brevity "the Tribunal") has decided 25 claim petitions arising out of the same accident involving same offending vehicle. 16 claim petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal pertaining to death cases, whereas, 09 claim petitions were pertaining to the injury cases. For facility of reference, detail of the cases pertaining to death and injury is given hereunder:-
Death Cases MA No. 262/2017 OIC Vs. Bodh Raj and ors.
MA No. 245/2017 OIC Vs. Gudwari Devi
MA No. 243/2017 OIC Vs. Baldev Chand anr ors.
MA No. 254/2017 OIC Vs. Hans Raj and ors.
MA No. 247/2017 OIC Vs. Neelma Devi and ors.
MA No. 259/2017 OIC Vs. Naseeb Chand and ors.
MA No. 258/2017 OIC Vs. Sumona Devi and ors.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 2 of 46
MA No. 251/2017 OIC Vs. Revo Devi and ors.
MA No. 244/2017 OIC Vs. Karpal Singh and ors.
MA No. 242/2017 OIC Vs. Shakuntla Devi and ors.
MA No. 257/2017 OIC Vs. Chanchalo Devi and ors.
MA No. 246/2017 OIC Vs. Mohd. Din
MA No. 261/2017 OIC Vs. Lali Ram and ors.
MA No. 255/2017 OIC Vs. Baldev Chand
MA No.260/2017 OIC Vs. Lalita Devi and ors.
MA No.265/2017 OIC Vs. Tripta Kumari and ors.
Injury cases
MA No. 249/2017 OIC Vs. Mado Lal
MA No. 250/2017 OIC Vs. Ravinder Kumar and ors.
MA No. 252/2017 OIC Vs. Krishan Chand and ors.
MA No. 256/2017 OIC Vs. Deep Kumar and ors.
MA No. 248/2017 OIC Vs. Angrez Singh
MA No. 241/2017 OIC Vs. Rehmat Ali
MA No. 263/2017 OIC Vs. Giasho Devi and ors.
MA No. 274/2017 OIC Vs. Kewal Krishan
MA No. 240/2017 OIC Vs. Prem Singh and ors.
2. The brief contextual facts in which the appeals under consideration have arisen needs to be noticed. On 24.11.2012 at 4.30 p.m, a vehicular accident involving vehicle No. JK02J-1735 took place at Dharman Basantgarh, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur. The accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle who could not control the vehicle which fell down into deep gorge. The travelers suffered multiple injuries. Some of them succumbed to the injuries and others suffered disablements of different nature. Next of kins of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming different sums on account of loss of their breadwinner. In some, the petitioners claimed compensation for the disablement they suffered and MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 3 of 46 also for reimbursement of medical and other allied expenses undertaken by them. Since all the claim petitions had arisen out of the same accident involving the same vehicle, the Tribunal clubbed all these petitions and decided the same by a common award. It is this common award, which the appellant-insurance company has called in question by filing 25 separate appeals. The appellant-insurance company has raised several grounds of challenge to assail the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. The appellant-insurance company, however, has not assailed the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle insured with the appellant-insurance company on the date of the accident. The liability of the owner too has not been disputed. What is, however, disputed before this Court in these appeals is the manner in which the Tribunal has assessed the compensation.
3. It is urged that the Tribunal has grossly erred in overlooking the objection of the appellant-insurance company that the Bus was grossly overloaded.
It is contended that as against seating capacity of 42 passengers, the offending passenger bus was carrying 82 passengers and, therefore, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance by the owner and driver of the vehicle. It is, thus, submitted that in such situation, the appellant-insurance company was absolved of its responsibility to indemnify the owner. This is the common ground of challenge taken by the appellant-insurance company in all these appeals. Rest of the grounds of challenge are case specific and pertain to some errors and omissions committed by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation in each case.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 4 of 464. Before proceeding further and taking up each appeal individually, it would be appropriate to deal with the aforesaid aspect highlighted by the appellant-insurance company. From perusal of the record and the award impugned, it is evident that there was specific issue struck by the Tribunal in this regard. For expediency, the relevant issue (in CP No. 483) is reproduced hereunder:-
"Whether there was any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy with respect to vehicle No. JK02J-1735 on the date of occurrence, if yes, what is its effect?"
5. This issue is common to all the claim petitions tried by the Tribunal and decided vide impugned award. The issue was considered by the Tribunal threadbare after taking note of the statements made by the witnesses adduced by the appellant-insurance company viz. ARTO Udhampur, Sanjay Kumar (RW-1), driver of the offending vehicle Rajinder Kumar (RW-2), owner of the offending vehicle Krishan Chand (RW-3) and an official of company namely Surinder Kumar Bhat (RW-4). Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, particularly, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the appellant-insurance company in support of the plea, the Tribunal concluded that at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying about 30-40 passengers while as its seating capacity was 42. The Tribunal, on facts, has found that the offending vehicle at the time of accident, was not overloaded.
6. I find no material on record to come to a contrary finding. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company could not point out even an iota of evidence, which would suggest that the vehicle was overloaded and that number of the passengers carried by it at the time of accident was exceeding 42, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 5 of 467. Accordingly, I find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the vehicle, at the time of accident, was overloaded and, therefore, was being driven contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. In the face of the aforesaid evidence, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insured (the owner of the vehicle). Having held so, I take up the individual cases; the death cases first.
MA No. 262/2017; OIC Vs. Bodh Raj and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Rakesh Kumar was an unmarried young man of 23 years and was working as labourer to earn his livelihood. His income was claimed by the claimants as Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the parents and two minor sisters. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one half on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 18 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,59,000/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification. While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 6 of 46 Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.; 2017 (16) SCC 680). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 50 % of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr; 2009 (3) SC 487, the multiplier for the age group of 15-25 years is 18 and the same has been correctly applied. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/- (Rs. 4,500/-+ Rs. 1800/-). Deducting 50% on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,150/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 37,800/-. Applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. Rs. 6,80,400/- (Rs. 37,800/-×18).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 6,80,400/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ 40,000/- each :- Rs. 80,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 7 of 46
Total :- Rs. 7,90,400/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 245/2017; OIC Vs. Gudwari Devi
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Tarlok Chand was 65 years old married person, who was working as labourer at the time of accident. In this case, the income of the deceased claimed by the claimants is Rs. 7,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the widow and son of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has deducted one- third on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 05 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account consortium and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls slight modification. While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper. The Tribunal has correctly deducted 1/3rd of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. (supra), the multiplier for the age group of 66-70 years is 05 and the same has been correctly applied. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 8 of 46 law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and deducting 1/3rd, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000/-(4500/3×12). Applying multiplier of 05, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. Rs. 1,80,000/-(Rs. 36,000×5).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 1,80,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss Spousal consortium to
to the wife of the deceased@ Rs. 40,000 :- Rs. 40,000/- Loss of parental consortium @Rs. 40,000:- Rs. 40,000/-
Total :- Rs. 2,90,000/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 243/2017; OIC Vs. Baldev Chand and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Joginder Singh was an unmarried young man of 21 years, who was working as labourer at the time of accident. In this case, the income of the deceased claimed by the claimants is Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the parents and two minor brothers. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one half on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 9 of 46 Tribunal is 18 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,59,000/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification. While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see Pranay Sethi and ors(supra). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 50 % of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. (supra), the multiplier for the age group of 15-25 years is 18 and the same has been correctly applied. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/-. Deducting 50%, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 37,800/-(6300/2×12). Applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 6,80,400/-(Rs. 37,800/-×18).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 10 of 46 Loss of dependency :- Rs. 6,80,400/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ 40,000/- each :- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 7,90,400/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 254/2017; OIC Vs. Hans Raj & Ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Raj Singh was a married person of 30 years, who was working as labourer at the time of accident. In this case, the income of the deceased claimed by the claimants is Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the parents, widow and daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one-fourth on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 17 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 13,62,750/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 11 of 46While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see Pranay Sethi and ors(supra). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 1/4th of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. (supra), the multiplier for the age group of 26-30 years is 17 and the same has been correctly applied. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/-. Deducting 1/4th on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,725/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 56,700/-. Applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 9,63,900/-(Rs. 56,700/-×17).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 9,63,900/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 12 of 46
@ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium
to daughter @ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Total :- Rs. 11,53,900/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 247/2017; OIC Vs. Neelam Devi and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Balbir Singh was minor at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed by the parents, sister and brother of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken his notional income @ Rs. 18,000/- and has used the multiplier of 15 which is just and proper, however, the sums under conventional heads needs to be modified, so as to bring it in tune with the established principal of law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
2. Accordingly, taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000/- and applying multiplier of 15, the total annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,70,000/-(Rs. 18,000×15).
3. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 2,70,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 3,80,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 13 of 46
4. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 259/2017; OIC Vs. Naseeb Chand and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Surinder was minor at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed by the parents, sister and brother of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken his notional income @ Rs. 18,000/- and has used the multiplier of 15 which is just and proper, however, the sums under conventional heads needs to be modified, so as to bring it in tune with the established principal of law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
2. Accordingly, taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000/- and applying multiplier of 15, the total annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,70,000/-(Rs. 18,000×15).
3. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 2,70,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 3,80,000/-
4. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 258/2017; OIC Vs. Sumona Devi and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Gulshan Kumar was 28 years old married person, who was working as labourer at the time of MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 14 of 46 accident. In this case, the income of the deceased claimed by the claimants is Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the widow and daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/- and has increased it by 50% which is contrary to the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). In the case of self employed person of the age below 40 years, there ought to be given an increase of 40% of the established income and not 50% as having been done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has deducted one-third on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 17 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account consortium and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,48,000/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that there is some variation that needs to be made insofar as the sums awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are concerned so that these are in conformity with the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra).
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/-. Deducting 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4200/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 50,400/-. Applying multiplier of 17, MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 15 of 46 the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 8,56,800/-(Rs. 50,400/-×17).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 8,56,800/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium
to wife @ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium
to daughter @ Rs. 40,000 :- Rs. 40,000/-
Total :- Rs. 9,66,800/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 251/2017; OIC Vs. Revo Devi and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Kuldeep Singh was an unmarried young man of 27 years and was working as labourer to earn his livelihood. His income was claimed by the claimants is Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the, widow, parents, brother and two minor sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one-fourth on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 17 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of consortium, MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 16 of 46 Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,62,750/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification. While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.; 2017 (16) SCC 680). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 50 % of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr; 2009 (3) SC 487, the multiplier for the age group of 26-30 years is 17 and the same has been correctly applied. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/- (Rs. 4,500/-+ Rs. 1800/-). Deducting 1/4th on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4725/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 56,700/-. Applying multiplier MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 17 of 46 of 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. Rs. 9,63,900/- (Rs. 56,700/-×17).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 9,63,900/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium
to wife @ 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium
to parents @ Rs.40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 11,13,900/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 244/2017; OIC Vs. Karpal Singh and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Kuldeep Singh was minor at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed by the parents and two minor sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken his notional income @ Rs. 18,000/- and has used the multiplier of 15 which is just and proper, however, the sums under conventional heads needs to be modified, so as to bring it in tune with the established principal of law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
2. Accordingly, taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000/- and applying multiplier of 15, the total annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,70,000/-(Rs. 18,000×15).
3. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 18 of 46 Loss of dependency :- Rs. 2,70,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 3,80,000/-
4. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 242/2017; OIC Vs. Shakuntla Devi and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Karnail Singh was a married person of 32 years, who was working as labourer at the time of accident. In this case, the income of the deceased has been claimed by the claimants as Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the widow and three minor children of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one-fourth on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 17 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of consortium, Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,62,750/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 19 of 46While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see Pranay Sethi and ors(supra). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 1/4th of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased. As per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. (supra), the multiplier for the age group of 31- 35 years is 16 but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 16. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/-. Deducting 1/4th on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,725/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 56,700/-. Applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 9,07,200/-(Rs. 56,700/-×16).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 9,07,200/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 20 of 46
@ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium
@ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Total :- Rs. 10,97,200/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 257/2017; OIC Vs. Chanchalo Devi and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Subash Chander was an unmarried young man of 18 years, who was working as labourer at the time of accident. In this case, the income of the deceased has been claimed by the claimants as Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the mother, sister and brother of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one half on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 18 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,09,000/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification. While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 21 of 46 self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see Pranay Sethi and ors(supra). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 50 % of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and ors. (supra), the multiplier for the age group of 15-25 years is 18 and the same has been correctly applied. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/- (Rs. 4,500/-+ Rs. 1800/-). Deducting 50% on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,150/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 37,800/-. Applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. Rs. 6,80,400/- (Rs. 37,800/-×18).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 6,80,400/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to mother @ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Total :- Rs. 7,50,400/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 22 of 46MA No. 246/2017;OIC Vs. Mohd. Din
1. In the instant case, the deceased Shafiq Ahmed, 25 years old was unmarried RET Teacher serving in the School Education Department. He was survived by his parents. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- which is not supported by any evidence on record. The deceased was a full time employee and was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He cannot be said to have been earning Rs. 20,000/- from tuition. However, keeping in view the age of the deceased and chances of his getting confirmed as regular teacher, it would be appropriate to take his monthly income as Rs. 7,500/-. There would be increase of 50% of the established income on account of loss of future prospects and equal amount of deduction towards the personal expenses. Multiplier of 18 has been correctly used by the Tribunal.
2. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- and adding 50% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 11,250/-. Deducting 50% on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,625/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 67,500/-. Applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 12,15,000/-(Rs. 67,500/-×18).
3. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 12,15,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 23 of 46
Total :- Rs. 13,25,000/-
4. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 261/2017; OIC Vs. Lali Ram and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Joginder Paul, 56 years old, at the time of death, was married Government Teacher serving in the School Education Department. The claim petition was filed by his widow and two minor children. He was receiving monthly salary of Rs. 22,493/- and was survived by his wife and two minor children. Vide SRO 94 dated 15.04.2009, the family pension payable to the claimants would be 50% of the last pay drawn by the deceased for a period of ten years. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of SRO 94 is reproduced hereunder:-
"Provided that in respect of a Government servant who may die while in service on or after 1.7.2009 after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the family pension on enhanced rates equal to 50% of the last pay draw shall be payable to the family of the Government servant from the date of death of the Government servant for a period of ten years without any upper age limit. Thereafter, the family pension shall be payable at the ordinary rates."
2. Admittedly, the last pay drawn of the salary of the deceased was Rs. 22,493/- per month. The tribunal has taken monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 22,493/- as such 50% of the last pay received or receivable for ten years by the claimants would work out to Rs. 22,493/2×12×10= Rs. 13,49,580/-. This amount is liable to be deducted from the amount awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of dependence.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 24 of 46
i) Loss of dependence :- Rs. 16,19,460-13,49,580
= Rs. 2,69,880/-
ii) Funeral expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
iii) Loss of estates :- Rs. 15,000/-
iv) Loss of spousal consortium :- Rs. 40,000/-
to wife.
v) Loss of parental consortium to
two minor children @ Rs.40000/
each 40000x2 :- Rs. 80,000/-
Total = Rs. 4,19,880/-
3. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 255/2017; OIC Vs. Baldev Chand
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Parshotam Singh was minor at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed by the parents, sister and two brothers of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken his notional income @ Rs. 18,000/- and has used the multiplier of 15 which is just and proper, however, the sums under conventional heads needs to be modified, so as to bring it in tune with the established principal of law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
2. Accordingly, taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000/- and applying multiplier of 15, the total annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,70,000/-(Rs. 18,000×15).
3. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 2,70,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 25 of 46
to parents @ Rs. 40,000/- each:- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 3,80,000/-
4. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 265/2017; OIC Vs. Tripta Kumari and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased Vipin Singh, 22 years old was unmarried RET Teacher serving in the School Education Department. He was survived by his mother. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- which is not supported by any evidence on record. The deceased was a full time employee and was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He cannot be said to have been earning Rs. 20,000/- from tuition. However, keeping in view the age of the deceased and chances of his getting confirmed as after regular teacher, it would be appropriate to take his monthly income as Rs. 7,500/-. There would be increase of 50% of the established income on account of loss of future prospects and equal amount of deduction towards the personal expenses. Multiplier of 18 has been correctly used by the Tribunal.
2. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- and adding 50% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 11,250/-. Deducting 50% on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,625/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 67,500/-. Applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 12,15,000/-(Rs. 67,500/-×18).
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 26 of 463. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 12,15,000/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial consortium
to mother @ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Total :- Rs. 12,85,000/-
4. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No. 260/2017; OIC Vs. Lalita Devi and ors.
1. In the instant case, the deceased namely Chuni Lal was a married person of 27 years, who was working as labourer at the time of accident. In this case, the income of the deceased has been claimed by the claimants as Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the widow and minor children of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income as Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal has given increase by 50 % towards the loss of future prospects and deducted one-third on account of personal expenses. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 17 and after awarding Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of consortium, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,48,000/-. It is this compensation awarded by the Tribunal which has been objected by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded calls for modification.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 27 of 46While there could be no dispute that in the case of labourer, where there is no specific proof of income brought on record, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month is just and proper but since the deceased was a self employed person and, therefore, there ought to have been an increase in income @ 40% (see Pranay Sethi and ors(supra). The Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction @ 1/3rd of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 17. However, the sums awarded under the conventional heads are not in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and would require modification.
3. Accordingly, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- and adding 40% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,300/-. Deducting 1/3rd on account of personal expenses, the net monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,200/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 50,400/-. Applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 9,63,900/-(Rs. 50,400/-×17).
4. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation in the following manner along with interest as has been provided by the Tribunal:-
Loss of dependency :- Rs. 9,63,900/-
Funeral Expenses :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate :- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium
@ Rs. 40,000/- :- Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium
@ Rs. 40,000/- to minor daughters
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 28 of 46
i.e 40,000/- each :- Rs. 80,000/-
Total :- Rs. 11,13,900/-
5. The award is, accordingly, modified in the manner aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
INJURY CASES MA No.240/2017;OIC Vs. Prem Singh and ors.
1. The claimant in this case is Prem Singh, who is stated to have sustained besides other multiple grievous injuries, A spinal injury as well in the accident in question. He claims to have suffered burst compound fracture of D6-8 due to which his condition deteriorated day by day as a result whereof the claimant/injured developed paraplegia rendering him 100% permanently disabled. The age of the claimant/respondent No.1 at the time of accident was 27 years. By doing the job of Masson, the respondent No.1 was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- as compensation under different heads. The appellant- Insurance Company contested the claim by filing it objections.
2. After appreciating the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal treating the respondent No.1 as a skilled labourer assessed the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects and taking his disability as 100%, the monthly loss of income was assessed as Rs.9000/-. Adopting the multiplier of 17, the tribunal assessed Rs.18,36,000/- as total loss of income. Accordingly, the tribunal held the respondent No.1 entitled to compensation along with interest @ 7.5% in the following manner:-
Loss of earning : Rs.18,36,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 29 of 46
Medical expenses : Rs.11,171/-
For future medical expenses : Rs.1,00,000/-
Transport Charges : Rs.1,00,000/-
Expenses for fowler and Alfa bed : Rs.30,000/-
till date
Future expenses for fowler and Alfa bed Rs.30,000/-
Expenses on special diet : Rs.50,000/-
For present power wheel chair : Rs.1,25,000/-
For future power wheel chair : R.1,25,000/-
For pain and suffering : Rs.2,00.000/-
For loss of amenities of life : Rs.2,00,000/-
Expenses on two attendants : Rs.30,60,000/-
Total : Rs.58,67,171/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company assails the aforesaid award of the tribunal primarily on the ground that the amount granted by the tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the tribunal has erred in making addition of 50% to the assessed income of the respondent No.1 towards loss of future prospects. It is further submitted that insofar as grant of compensation on account of expenses of two attendants is concerned, same is based on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, is unreasonable.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in making addition of 50% to the assessed income of the claimant. In MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 30 of 46 terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% requires to be added towards the loss of future prospects. Thus, the loss of income would come to Rs.8,400/-. Taking the disability of the claimant 100%, applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of income comes to (8400x12x17) Rs.17,13,600/-. Sums awarded under other heads shall remain unchanged.
6. The award is, accordingly, modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.249/2017;OIC Vs. Mado Lal
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple injuries including fracture in left leg, below the knee and head injury in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 15%. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal thereby claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects and applying the multiplier of 18, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.2,18,700/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.8,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.4,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 31 of 46
Damages on account of pain : Rs.15,000/-
And suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.20,000/-
Medical expenses : Rs.684/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.2,71,384/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is provided where claimant is self-employed and is below 40 years. The claimant in this case is admittedly below 40 years, as such, addition of 40% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 40% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+ 1800) Rs.6,300/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 15%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.945/-. Adopting the multiplier of MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 32 of 46 18, the total loss of income comes to (945 x 12 x 18) Rs.2,04,120/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,04,120/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.274/2017; Kewal Krishan
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple injuries including fracture of right clavicle, injury of right shoulder and fracture of left hip in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.90,000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 10%. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal thereby claiming an amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects and applying the multiplier of 18, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.1,45,800/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.6,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.3,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.10,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 33 of 46
And suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.15,000/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.1,84,800/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is provided where claimant is self-employed and is below 40 years. The claimant in this case is admittedly below 40 years, as such, addition of 40% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 40% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+ 1800) Rs.6,300/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 10%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.945/-. Adopting the multiplier of 18, the total loss of income comes to (630 x 12 x 18) Rs.2,04,120/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,36,080/- on MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 34 of 46 account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.241/2017;OIC Vs. Rehmat Ali
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple grievous injuries on head, face, shoulder and spine in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 15%. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal thereby claiming an amount of Rs.23,50,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 15% towards loss of future prospects, taking the permanent disability @ 15% and applying the multiplier of 11, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.1,02,465/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.9,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.5,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.10,000/-
and suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.8,000/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 35 of 46
Medical expenses : Rs.7825/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.1,47,290/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 15% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 10% is provided where claimant is self-employed and is between the age group of 50-60 years. As such, addition of 10% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated to be a labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 10% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+450) Rs.4950/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 15%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.742/-. Adopting the multiplier of 18, the total loss of income comes to (742 x 12 x 11) Rs.97,944/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.97,944/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 36 of 465. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.250/2017;OIC Vs. Ravinder Kumar and ors.
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple grievous injuries including left hip, spinal injury and injury on right arm in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 15%. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal thereby claiming an amount of Rs.15,50,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, taking the permanent disability at 15% and applying the multiplier of 17, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.2,06,550/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.2,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.2,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.12,000/-
and suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.15,000/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.2,42,550/-
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 37 of 46
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is provided where claimant is self-employed below the age of 40 years. As such, addition of 40% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated to be a labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 40% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+1800) Rs.6300/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 15%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.945/-. Adopting the multiplier of 17, the total loss of income comes to (945 x 12 x 17) Rs.1,92,780/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,92,780/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 38 of 46MA No.256/2017;OIC Vs. Deep Kumar and ors.
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of ribs, fracture of right shoulder, head injury and stomach injury in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 31 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 07% of lower left limb. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.18,30,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, taking the permanent disability at 07% and applying the multiplier of 18, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.1,02,060/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.5,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.3,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.7,000/-
and suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.1,32,060/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 39 of 46 side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is provided where claimant is self-employed below the age of 40 years. As such, addition of 40% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated to be a labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. I find no infirmity in rest of the award warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 40% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+1800) Rs.6300/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 07%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.945/-. Adopting the multiplier of 17, the total loss of income comes to (441 x 12 x 18) Rs.64,480/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.95,256/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.248/2017;OIC Vs. Angrez Singh
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of three ribs, eyes and left sholder injury in MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 40 of 46 the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.7,5000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 5% of lower right limb. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.17,00,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, taking the permanent disability at 5% and applying the multiplier of 16, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.64,800/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.7,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.4,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.6,000/-
and suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.8,000/-
Medical expenses : Rs.4829/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.99,629/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 41 of 46 employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is provided where claimant is self-employed below the age of 40 years. As such, addition of 40% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated to be a labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 40% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+1800) Rs.6300/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 05%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.945/-. Adopting the multiplier of 17, the total loss of income comes to (315 x 12 x 16) Rs.60,480/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.60,480/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.252/2017;OIC Vs. Krishan Chand and ors.
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple grievous injuries including head, fracture in right leg and fracture of five ribs from the joint of spinal cord in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 42 of 46 deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, he is labourer by profession and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 12% of lower right limb. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.25,50,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, taking the permanent disability at 12% and applying the multiplier of 18, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.1,74,960/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.8,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.20,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.12,000/-
and suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.18,000/-
Medical expenses : Rs.41,065/-
Diet expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Total : Rs.2,79,025/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 43 of 464. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 40% is provided where claimant is self-employed below the age of 40 years. As such, addition of 40% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated to be a labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 40% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+1800) Rs.6300/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 12%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.810/-. Adopting the multiplier of 18, the total loss of income comes to (810 x 12 x 18) Rs.1,74,960/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,74,960/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
MA No.263/2017;OIC Vs. Giasho Devi and ors.
1. The claimant in this case is stated to have sustained multiple grievous injuries including head/back injury, cervical injury and injuries over legs in the accident in question when he was going from Mulathi to Basantgarh in the offending vehicle. The deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident. According to the claimant, she was running a diary farm besides, doing household jobs and her income earning MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 44 of 46 Rs.6,000/- per month. The doctors certified the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 20% due to D5 compressed. The claimant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 under different heads.
2. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it, assessed the income of the claimant/respondent No.1 as Rs.4,500/- per month. Adding 30% towards loss of future prospects, taking the permanent disability at 20% and applying the multiplier of 15, the tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of future income : Rs.2,10,600/-
Expenditure for two attendants : Rs.5,000/-
Transport charges : Rs.3,000/-
Damages on account of pain : Rs.12,000/-
and suffering
Loss of amenities : Rs.16,000/-
Medical expenses : Rs.728/-
Diet expenses : Rs.8,000/-
Total : Rs.2,55,358/-
3. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the aforesaid award stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The primary ground raised by the appellant to assail the award of the Tribunal is that the claimant/respondent No.1 being a self employed person, no addition could have been made on account of prospective income.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% to the assessed income of the claimant towards loss of future MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 45 of 46 income. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 25% is provided where claimant is self-employed between the age of 40-50 years. As such, addition of 25% to the established income is applicable. The tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the claimant, who is stated to be a labourer, as Rs.4,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also correct. In rest of the award I find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, adding 25% towards loss of future income, the monthly loss of income comes to (4500+1125) Rs.5625/-. Taking the disability of the claimant, as has been proved before the Tribunal, 20%, the total monthly loss of income comes to Rs.1125/-. Adopting the multiplier of 15, the total loss of income comes to (1125 x 12 x 15) Rs.2,02,500/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.64,480/- on account of loss of future income. Sums awarded on other heads shall remain unchanged.
5. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
6. The amount, if any, found in excess be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company.
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu 26.04.2019 Tarun TARUN KUMAR GUPTA 2019.04.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document MA No.274/2017 a/w connected matters. Page 46 of 46