Uttarakhand High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt Sashi Prabha Negi And Others on 19 July, 2017
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 183/2015
National Insurance Company Limited .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sashi Prabha Negi & Others .... Respondents
Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the claimant/respondent no. 1
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the respondent no. 5.
None for the remaining respondents.
July 19th, 2017
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that the accident occurred on 30.6.2012 at 2.30 PM at the outskirts of District Muzzafarnagar. The sole dependant/wife of the deceased resided in District Pauri Garhwal. So, she instituted the MACP Petition No. 57/2012 claiming compensation of Rs. 32,40,000/- in the Court of Additional District Judge/Tribunal, Kotdwar. Deceased Mr. Surendra Singh Negi, aged 62 years, was a retired IPS officer. He was travelling in his Indica Car No. UK08-L- 5611, which was dashed by the truck no. UP14-AT-5367 and as a result thereof, Mr. Negi lost his life at the spot. Tribunal has awarded Rs. 28,20,600/- along with 9 per cent simple annual interest with effect from the date of presentation of the petition till that of actual payment.
Insurer has agitated the quantum on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error by taking the base income/monthly pension of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 48,225/- in the month of June, 2012 because as per the paper no. 49Ga/6, which was issued under the signature of the Treasury Officer, Kotdwar, Garhwal, this pension of June, 2012 has been shown after including the 2 arrear of the dearness allowance for the previous months to the tune of Rs. 10350/-. So, at least this should not have been included.
This argument may be considered to an extent. However, the Court is not inclined to mitigate the basic pension income for calculation of the award on this score for the reason that the appellant insurance company has presented a paper annexure no. 3, which is the information supplied by the Treasury Officer, Kotdwar dated 7.3.2014. In this information, the monthly pension has been shown to be Rs. 56,202/- per month. So, there is a clear contradiction between the contents of Paper No. 49GA which is the present in the LCR and the information supplied by the Treasury Officer under the RTI Act sought by the insurance company.
At the same time, the Court notices that Smt. Sashi Prabha Negi is the sole dependant after the death of Mr. Surendra Singh Negi and as per information supplied by the Treasury Officer, Kotdwar, she was getting the family pension to the tune of Rs. 17,748/- in addition to the dearness allowance. So, this can be estimated that she might be getting almost Rs. 35,000-/ to Rs. 40,000/- monthly family pension even after the death of her husband.
That apart, even if Rs. 48,225/- is taken as the base income for applying the multiplier, then also the Tribunal should have considered on the point that had Mr. Negi been alive, he would have spent at least half of his income to meet out his own expenses. Therefore, in the total income, half should have been deducted, instead of one-third.
This way, the dependency comes to Rs.
5,78,700/2 = Rs. 2,89,350/- per annum. On applying the 3 multiplier of 7, which has rightly been chosen by the Tribunal, the compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 20,25,450/-. This Court is not inclined to disturb the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- granted towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- for cremation and Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of estate. This way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 21,45,450/-. Simple annual interest @ 6 per cent, instead of 9 per cent, shall be paid on this amount with effect from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the actual payment.
Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above.
Registry shall forthwith remit the compulsory statutory amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the Tribunal concerned. Insurance company shall also deposit the remaining amount at the earliest.
Let the LCR be sent back.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Prabodh