Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Rajni And Ors. on 12 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ1286
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. By this common judgment two appeals can conveniently be disposed of together. Both the appeals are directed against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barnala, dated 4.9.1996. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,76,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till its realization to petitioner Rajni and others. The compensation was awarded even to Satish Kumar injured which is not in controversy before us. The learned Tribunal had directed that share of the minors be deposited in some nationalized bank and shall be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years. It should be revived from time to time till the minors attain majority. It was further directed that the amount be deposited in the name of the minors through their guardian. The interest would accrue on the amount every year and shall be paid to the guardian for discharging obligation of the minor children. On attaining majority they are entitled to recover the amount. In the case of Sushma Rani Rs. 36,000 were to be paid to her and balance amount was to be deposited in a nationalised bank at Barnala. It was to be kept in a fixed deposit initially for a period of 3 years. It was to be revived from time to time during her lifetime. The interest which is to be accrued has to be paid to her. Since the claimants as well as the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. both have challenged the said award, both the F.A.O. Nos. 814 and 935 of 1997 can be disposed of together.
2. The relevant facts are that Raj Kumar was coming on his motor cycle from Handiaya towards Barnala at about 11.00 a.m. Satish Kumar was the pillion rider on his motor cycle. When they reached near Gurudwara Nanaksar situated at Handiaya Road, Barnala, one jeep bearing No. DHB 6126 came from the side of Handiaya at a high speed. The driver of the said jeep did not blow any horn and struck against the motor cycle. It caused injuries on the person of Satish Kumar. Raj Kumar succumbed to the injuries. Manjit Singh was the driver of the jeep which was owned by Jagdev Singh. The jeep was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
3. A case was registered against Manjit Singh as F.I.R. No. 34 of 1993 at Police Station Kotwali, Barnala. The widow of Raj Kumar along with his children claimed Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation.
4. The petition was contested. The driver and owner of the jeep denied the accident. The issuance of the policy was not disputed. So far as insurance company is concerned, it had filed separate reply. A defence was taken that driver of the jeep did not have a valid driving licence. Consequently, the company was not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The Tribunal held that Sushma Rani is the widow and the other petitioners are the heirs of deceased Raj Kumar. It was further held that accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question. The learned Tribunal held that the monthly income would be Rs. 3,000. Applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation was awarded.
6. As against the award of the Tribunal the insurance company mentioned above as well as the claimants have preferred separate appeals.
7. Along with the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., an application had been filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for permission to prosecute the appeal. In the present case not only the insurance policy permitted the company to conduct the proceedings but in face of the fact that the owner of the vehicle had not even cared to challenge the award, the permission has been granted to the insurance company to prosecute the appeal.
8. As pointed out above, the sole controversy before us at the motion stage has been as to whether the compensation awarded is adequate or not. While the claimants contended that the compensation awarded is totally inadequate and higher multiplier should have been applied, on behalf of the insurance company, the plea advanced was that the income of the deceased had to be taken as per the return filed with the Income Tax authorities. After deducting 1/3rd for personal expenditure of the deceased, the compensation could only be determined.
9. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), that fair compensation has to be paid. It has to be just, proportionate to the injuries caused and the damage done. In para 15, the court held:
"We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by Tribunals and courts that the principle on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English decisions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., (1942) AC 601, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased."
Thereafter the Supreme Court went on to describe as to how the same has to be calculated.
10. In the present case as mentioned above the controversy was about calculating the income of the deceased. The widow of the deceased, respondent No. 1, Sushma Rani had stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 50,000 per annum. On the contrary reliance by the insurance company is being placed on the fact that in the income tax assessment certificate for the year 1992-93, the income has been declared as Rs. 31,370 per annum. Accord-ing to the learned Counsel that could be taken as the annual income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal fell into an error in taking Rs. 3,000 p.m. as the income of the deceased.
11. In the present case, the statement of Sushma Rani has to be taken in light of the fact that the declared income of the deceased for the year 1992-93 was as up to 31.3.1992. The accident has taken place more than one year thereafter. It appears that widow of the deceased has made statement about the increase in the income and proceeded to state that it was Rs. 50,000 per annum. This conclusion has to flow from the fact that annual income as shown for purposes of income tax even has been produced. We are not accepting the statement of the widow of the deceased as a whole. But we are not confining ourselves to the certificate produced pertaining to the annual income of the deceased for the year 1992-93. In that view of the matter, after giving due deduction regarding the personal expenses of the deceased if the Tribunal has taken Rs. 3,000 p.m., the same is a little on the higher side. The income of the deceased can well be taken to be Rs. 2,500 p.m. or Rs. 30,000 per annum. There was no controversy about applying the multiplier of 16 and in that view, the compensation to be awarded to the heirs and the widow would come to Rs. 4,80,000. The award of the Tribunal, therefore, has to be modified accordingly. It shall be apportioned between the heirs as done by the learned Tribunal.
12. For these reasons, the appeals are disposed of with the above modification in the award. The widow and children of the deceased would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the above said principal amount. The amount shall be deposited in the nationalised bank in terms of the award of the learned Tribunal.