Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Bindu Mandal And Ors. vs Aparup Chattopadhaya And New India ... on 25 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)ACC521, 2007ACJ274, [2006(3)JCR183(JHR)], 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 788, 2007 AIHC 600, (2006) 45 ALLINDCAS 774 (JHA), (2006) 3 TAC 777, (2006) 3 ACC 521, (2007) 1 ACJ 274, (2006) 3 JCR 183 (JHA)
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, R.K. Merathia
ORDER
Page 863
1. These two appeals, one by the claimants and the another by the Insurance Company arose out of a common judgment dated 1st August, 2003 passed in compensation case No. 46/2001. The claimants- appellants have filed M.A. No. 63/2004 for enhancement of compensation whereas the Insurance Company has filed M.A. No. 21/2004 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. In other words, Insurance company's appeal is for reducing the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal.
2. M.A. 63/2004 was heard on 21.4.2006 and this Court tried to get the dispute in both the appeals settled through Lok Adalat. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties were also of the view that a settlement with regard to quantum of compensation should be arrived at so that the amount may be paid to the claimants in the Lok Adalat. In order to comply the requirements of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure these two appeals have been taken up together for hearing. But today the appellant-Insurance Company has backed out from its commitment and submitted that in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company v. Tilak Singh and Ors. 2006 (4) SCALE 67, the Insurance Company has no liability and, therefore, question of payment of compensation to the claimants, who are non-else but the widow and minor children, does not arise. We have heard the appeals on merits and the same are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts of the case are that on 5.5.2001 the deceased along with his daughter left Jamshedpur in a private Maruti car of his colleague bearing registration No. B.R.-16N-1758 along with the owner of the vehicle, his wife and sons. When the car reached near a Nursing Home, it took sudden turn towards right as a result of which the car turned turtled and the deceased was thrown out of the car and he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was a scientist posted at National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur. He was aged 55 years and was being paid salary of Rs. 16,971/- Both the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle filed their show cause. In the show cause filed by the owner it was stated that at the relevant time the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company vide policy Page 864 No. 31410053424 and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. In the show cause filed by the Insurance Company it was stated that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and so the claim put forth by the claimants is highly inflated.
4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and, therefore, it is liable to pay the compensation amount. So far quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that although gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 16,971/- but his net income, as per salary charts (Exts. 2 & 2/1) was Rs. 10,444/- The tribunal, therefore, took Rs. 10,444/- as net income of the deceased and on that basis it calculated the monthly dependency at Rs. 6,963/- after deducting 1/3rd of the amount which was expected to be the expenses of the deceased for his self maintenance. Taking the monthly dependency of Rs. 6,963/- the annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 83,556/- and by applying the multiplier theory taking 17 years of purchase the total amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 14,30,452/-.
5. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, on the one hand, submitted that the quantum of compensation assessed by the tribunal is not in accordance with law. Learned Counsel submitted that the tribunal ought to have taken the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the total compensation. According to the learned Counsel, out of the total salary of Rs. 16,971/- a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was being deducted by way of voluntary provident fund and, therefore, this amount also ought to have been taken for the purpose of calculating the compensation.
6. On the other hand, Mr. H.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company firstly submitted that the deceased being 47 years of age as per the certificate of the Board examination, multiplier of 15 years ought to have been taken and in this way the compensation assessed by the tribunal is on the higher side. Learned Counsel then submitted that the Insurance Company has no liability for payment of compensation in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Shimla v. Talak Singh and Ors. 2006 (4) SCALE 67. A photo copy of the judgment has been produced before us.
7. After considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties the following two moot questions fall for consideration by this Court:
[I] Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable ?
[ii] Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount of compensation ?
8. Re. [I]: As noticed above, the claimants, both in the claim petition and also in the evidence have stated that the age of the deceased was 45 years. The said statement was not controverted either by the owner of the car or by the Insurance Company. Even the documents in support of the fact that the deceased was aged 47 years was neither produced nor proved before the tribunal. Now-a-days longevity of a man in India is taken to be 70 years. Even assuming that the deceased was aged 47 years, he would have been alive at least for 24 years more. In that view of the matter, in our view, the multiplier of 17 years cannot be Page 865 said to be in higher side particularly when the deceased was a scientist and because of his sudden death it is not only the loss for his family members but also a loss to the Nation. The tribunal taking the monthly dependency at Rs. 6,963/-and after applying the multiplier theory assessed compensation of Rs. 14,30,452/-. In our considered opinion the amount of compensation is neither in lower side nor on the higher side. We, therefore, fully agree with the procedure adopted by the tribunal in assessing the quantum of compensation which needs no interference by this Court.
Re. [ii]: As noticed hereinabove, the vehicle in question was a private car of the colleague of the deceased. The deceased with his daughter and his colleague and his family members were going from one place to another place when accident took place. It was neither the case of the Insurance Company that the persons other than the owner of the vehicle were not covered by the insurance policy nor any evidence to that effect was led before the Tribunal. As stated above, it is for the first time, after agreeing to settle the claim in the Lok Adalat the appellant-Insurance Company has backed out from its commitment and has tried to disown its liability by citing a decision referred to hereinabove.
9. The binding precedence of the judgment has been well discussed by the Supreme Court in a case where their lordships observed :
A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein, nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expression which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. It would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there from the judgment and to build upon it. because the essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein.
Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be s static and therefore, judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents.
10. In Tilak Singh's case (supra) the scooter was insured with the Insurance Company. Although, for covering the liability to pillion rider endorsement of I.M.T. 70 pertaining to accident to unnamed hirer driver/pillion passenger is required on the Insurance Policy which may be obtained by payment of additional premium but in the case before the Supreme Court no premium was paid for covering the pillion rider. Moreover, the scooter was sold by the original owner to another person and the registration certificate of the scooter was transferred but no notice thereto was given by the transferor to the Insurance Company for transfer of the insurance. Taking into consideration all these facts their lordships held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
Page 866
11. In the facts of the instant case we are constrained to mention that the deceased died leaving behind his widow and minor children who fought the claim up to the appellate stage and at no point of time the Insurance Company disowned its liability on the ground which has been taken on the basis of the aforementioned decision. The widow and the minor dependants who obtained award as far back as in 2003 have been deprived of their legitimate claim of compensation. In our view, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability for payment of compensation.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, these two appeals are dismissed. We direct the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest as awarded by the tribunal by handing over a cheque to the claimants in the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 7th May, 2006 in the High Court premises. Needless to say that if any interim compensation and/ or any amount towards compensation has already been paid by the Insurance Company, the same shall be deducted.