Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.301 OF 2017
Between:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
HIMLAND HOTEL, SHIMLA-1 HP
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. I. N. MEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. REENA KUMARI
W/O SH. KARAM CHAND,
D/O SH. JULFI RAM,
RESIDING WITH HER FATHER
SH. JULTI RAM,
R/O VILLAGE MAKRER,
TEHSIL BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
2. SH. HEMANT KUMAR
S/O SH. MAST RAM,
R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BIR,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. SANJEEV K. SURI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1.)
____________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Respondent No.1 was the claimant before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 2 (Tribunal in short). She instituted a petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act (Act in short), claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Sh. Karam .
Chand.
2. The case put-forth was that that an Alto car being driven by Sh. Karam Chand on 22.11.2013 struck against another Alto car being driven by respondent No.2. As a result of the accident, Sh. Karam Chand breathed his last on the spot.
The claimant alleged that deceased was running a Manyari shop and was earning Rs.3300/- per month. Hence, compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- was claimed. Respondent No.2 and the insurer contested the matter.
3. Vide award dated 01.10.2015, learned Tribunal held that Sh. Karam Chand had died due to a motor vehicle accident arising out of use of motor vehicle being driven by respondent No.2. The age of Sh. Karam Chand at the time of accident was determined as 30 years. Monthly income of the deceased though was not assessed in the impugned award, but it was observed that even an unskilled worker could easily earn Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day. From a reading of paragraph-18 of the impugned award an inference can be drawn that perhaps monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs.4950/-. 1/3rd from this amount was deducted ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 3 towards his personal expenses. Loss of dependency was accordingly determined as Rs.3300/- per month. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 was .
applied and the total dependency was worked out at Rs.7,12,800/-. In addition to this, the claimant was also held entitled to Rs.9500/- as conventional amount, Rs.2000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards consortium and Rs.2000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in all, the total payable compensation was assessed at Rs.7,22,300/-
alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. The liability to pay the amount was fastened upon the insurer.
4. The insurer has assailed the award on the ground that the compensation was not determined by the learned Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Act. Schedule-II of the Act was given a go-bye by the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The claim petition was filed by respondent No.1 under Section 163(A) of the Act. The learned Tribunal had observed in the impugned award that even an unskilled worker could easily earn Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day.
::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 4Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if income of the deceased is taken as Rs.150/- per day, then also his monthly income would be Rs.4500/- or in other words .
Rs.54,000/- per annum. As per Schedule-II, which is to be made the basis for payment of compensation in petitions filed under Section 163(A) of the Act, the maximum annual income could not be assessed more than Rs.40,000/- . This position is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. Thus, proceeding from the base fact that under Section 163 (A) of the Act, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of structured formula, which does not permit assessment of annual income more than Rs.40,000/-. The payable compensation is re worked out as under:-
Annual income=Rs. 40,000/-.
1/3rd deduction from income in terms of Schedule-II= Rs.13,333/-
Loss of dependency= Rs.40,000-Rs.13,333 =Rs.26,667/-.
Applicable multiplier of 18 i.e.Rs.26,667 x18=Rs.4,80,006/-.
The compensation to which the claimant would be entitled to in terms of (2017)16 SCC 680, titled National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others, loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, which comes to Rs.70,000/-.
Total payable compensation amount i.e. Rs.4,80,006 + Rs.70,000=Rs.5,50,006/-.::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 5
In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified in the aforesaid terms.
The remaining components of the impugned award, including .
interest, shall remain the same.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no objection in case the amount as determined aforesaid in the instant appeal is released in favour of respondent No.1/claimant. It is, therefore, ordered that the amount as determined aforesaid, which is lying deposited in the Registry of this Court, be released to the respondent No.1/claimant in her bank account, details whereof have already been appended by her alongwith CMP No.7312 of 2022.
The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 22, 2022 R.Atal ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS