Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Premwati And Ors on 8 August, 2013
F.A. O. No. 2363 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 2363 of 2012
Date of decision:-08.08.2013
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
....... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Premwati and ors.
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by the appellant the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer challenging the award dated 03.01.2012 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which for assessing compensation on the death of an unmarried person multiplier of 18 has been adopted on the age of the deceased.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.14 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 2363 of 2012 -2-
Vide award dated 03.01.2012 learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition brought by Prem Wati and Gopal Dass in a sum of Rs.5,31,825/- while taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4300/- per month. Learned Tribunal took the dependency of the claimants at ½ of the same and multiplying the remainder with 12, found the annual dependency of the claimants and multiplied it with 18, the multiplier selected by him on the age of the deceased and found a sum of Rs.4,64,400/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Namita, their daughter. Adding thereto, a sum of Rs.52,425/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,500/- towards funeral expenses, transportation charges and loss of estate, a sum of Rs.5,31,825/- is allowed as compensation by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is a case of death of a bachelor and in this case, the multiplier should be taken with reference to the age of the claimants. According to him, the Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted, on the other hand, that the multiplier has to be taken with reference to the age of the deceased. He has cited before me a Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.14 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 2363 of 2012 -3- decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Amrit Bhanu Shali and ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2012 ACJ 2002 where the deceased was a 26 years old bachelor and the multiplier of 17 was adopted with reference to his age.
Apart from Amrit Bhanu Shali's case supra , there are other decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, one of which can be cited here is P.S. Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another, 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 228 where the deceased was unmarried of the age of 33 years and the multiplier was taken as 16 with reference to the age of the deceased.
In these circumstances, when consensus is emerging towards adopting the multiplier on the death of a bachelor with reference to the age of the deceased, there is no reason for me to hold that learned Tribunal has been wrong in adopting the multiplier of 18. Consequently, I find no reason to hold that the multiplier has been wrongly selected by learned Tribunal in the case. Therefore, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.
The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 08.08.2013 JUDGE dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.14 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh