Uttarakhand High Court
Bharat Singh Topwal And Ors vs Girija Shankar Nautiyal And Others. on 13 December, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 293 of 2009
Bharat Singh Topwal & Ors ....... Petitioners
Versus
Girija Shankar Nautiyal & others. ......Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
With
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 364 of 2009
Bhagwan Singh & Ors ....... Petitioners
Versus
Girija Shankar Nautiyal & others. ......Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
With
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 162 of 2010
Bharat Singh Topwal & Ors ....... Petitioners
Versus
Girija Shankar Nautiyal & others. ......Respondents
None is present for the appellants.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
13th December, 2016
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
All these appeals are being adjudicated hereinbelow as have arisen out of the same accident which occurred on 02.09.2007 when Bus No. UP7C-2973 overturned in the hilly roads of Tehri Garhwal. Few persons lost their life while some others were injured. I will deal all these appeals 2 one by one. In AO No. 293 of 2009, the deceased was Smt. Neeta Devi, women of 29 years, who was also said to be an Aganbadi worker.
The learned counsel for the appellant indicating the insufficiency of the award has urged nothing substantial. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
In AO No. 364/2009, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for the enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the deceased was old father/grandfather of the claimants. In the post mortem report, the autopsy doctor has assessed his age as 57 years. Nothing reliably has been filed to controvert this assessment except the copy of the Parivar register which has the cuttings too at many places. It can further be added that in such matters, there is no straitjacket equation, which is always applied, but there remains always a gray area. The multiplier is chosen considering the age of the deceased if it was higher than that of the claimants. So, as per Sarla Verma's case although the multiplier would have been of nine but considering that all these petitioners were not dependant on the deceased. I deem it proper to apply the multiplier of "7". This way it comes to Rs. 3,27,600/-. The compensation amount is modified / enhanced to Rs. 03,27,600/-. Rest of the amount on the cremation score is left intact and the award shall stand modified accordingly.
Appeal thus stands allowed in the above terms.
Lastly in AO No. 162/2010, award of Rs. 01,82,000/- has been challenged and the prayer has been made to enhance the same. Notwithstanding, none has turned up for the appellant to press this appeal even in the revised call, but, since the counsel for the opposite party/respondent no. 2 is present hence, this Court has 3 considered the merits of this appeal by rendering hearing to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company alone.
The claimants were the parents of the youth Sunil Lal aged about 18 years, who lost his life in such accident. Since, he was an unemployed youth hence the learned Tribunal, for evaluation of compensation has taken the base income as notional one and after applying the multiplier of "10", to the half of such notional income, the compensation has been awarded as stated above.
In the case of Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr reported in 2010 (2) U.D., 527, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such cases, the multiplier should be on the basis of age of either the deceased or the claimants, who ever is elder. In that case even the celebrated case of Sarla Verma was discussed and so if we apply the multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case, it comes to denomination of "14", because the average age of the parents is "43".
There is a settled proposition in these matters that there is no hard and fast straitjacket equation to evaluate the compensation. There is always a gray area and it depends upon the Court to assess the quantum of the award after considering all accessories and relevant facts and circumstances.
In the case in hand, I think if the multiplier of "12", is applied then it would meet the ends of justice because the parents were not dependants upon the deceased, he was just adolescent child and so applying the multiplier of "12" to 18,000/-, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The amount in other score is left intact .
In that way, the appeal stands allowed and the award is modified to the extent as above.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 4 13.12.2016 SH