Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sandesh Kumari And Ors. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 1 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: II(2005)ACC673, 2005ACJ1581
Author: Arun Kumar Goel
Bench: Arun Kumar Goel
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.
1. The appeal is admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that looking to only two questions raised in the case, it can be disposed of at this stage only. Keeping in view this prayer, this matter has been taken up for final hearing today.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Only two grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case for allowing this appeal by enhancing the compensation. These are:
(a) that proved age of the deceased Amar Singh at the time of accident is 41 years; and
(b) multiplier of 8 needs to be enhanced again keeping in view the proved age of the deceased with interest from the date of filing of claim petition and not from the date of award.
Though an attempt was made, on behalf of the respondents, by learned counsel to turn down both these pleas and consequently to dismiss this appeal, however, they were not able to satisfy the court on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced in this behalf to accept their plea.
3. Vehicle bearing registration No. HP 01-1148 being owned by respondent No. 2, and being insured with respondent No. 1, insurance company is not in dispute. Similarly, no leave of the Tribunal was sought to contest the claim of appellants as per provisions of Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is being mentioned, because in the absence of permission, defences of the respondent No. 1, insurance company are limited as contained in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also not in dispute that appellant No. 1 is the widow, appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are his children and the appellant No. 6 is the mother of the deceased Amar Singh. He was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in police at the time of the accident on 30.12.2000 when above vehicle met with an accident while it was on its way from Manali to Kelong. Both, driver as well as Amar Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident.
4. In the aforesaid background, compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 was claimed by appellants. Learned Tribunal below, vide impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. 3,84,000 with 9 per cent interest from the date of award till its realisation. This amount has been apportioned whereby allowing the appellant No. 1, widow Rs. 2,00,000, the appellant No. 6, mother Rs. 34,000, whereas the remaining sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to be shared equally by the appellant Nos. 2 to 5.
5. Looking to the statement of PW 2 Rewal Singh, Pay Bill Assistant in the office of Superintendent of Police, Shimla, it is clear that monthly wage of deceased was Rs. 8,962. Photostat copy of last pay certificate is Exh. PA. Date of birth of the deceased is 12.6.1960. This is also established as per photostat copy of date of birth certificate Exh. PC, issued by the Government Senior Secondary School, Samaila, District Mandi, H.P.
6. In deciding this appeal, statement of this witness is enough so far monthly wage of the deceased is concerned. Another fact that needs to be noted from the statement of PW 1 Sandesh Kumari, widow of the deceased is, that he (deceased) used to get 13 months' salary every year as a police employee. There is no cross-examination directed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 2 on this aspect. Thus, it had remained unchallenged.
7. Rounding off monthly wage of the deceased to Rs. 9,000 and allowing the multiplier method, which is by now well-known and well accepted while assessing compensation in the cases of present nature, monthly dependency of the appellants on the deceased works out to Rs. 7,200 and for 13 months it comes to Rs. 93,600. Accordingly, findings recorded by the learned Tribunal below in this behalf need to be modified. Ordered accordingly.
8. Deceased was less than 41 years of age on the date of accident as per Exh. PC. Keeping in view the uncertainties of life and other relevant factors, it is felt that multiplier of 8 adopted by learned Tribunal below is ridiculously low. Looking to the decision in the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, , it is felt that in the present case at least multiplier of 14 should have been applied by the Tribunal below. Thus, it fell into error in applying multiplier of 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 was not in a position to satisfy the court as to why the lesser multiplier by the Tribunal be upheld. Though he persisted with vehemence that impugned award calls for no interference in this appeal. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected and is devoid of merit in the face of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), as well as in view of the evidence on record.
9. Over and above the amount of compensation as may be assessed in this appeal, appellant No. 1 widow, will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,100 on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 5,500 on account of loss to estate as well as funeral expenses.
10. The total amount payable by the respondents to appellants in this case thus comes to Rs. 7,200 x 13 = Rs. 93,600 x 14 = Rs. 13,10,400 + Rs. 14,100 + Rs. 5,500 = Rs. 13,30,000. This sum of Rs. 13,30,000 will also carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, i.e., 13.8.2001 till deposit/ payment (whichever is earlier). But any amount awarded/paid either under no fault liability or in terms of impugned award, shall be deducted out of this amount. Regarding apportionment, it is ordered that mother of deceased, namely, Sunehru Devi will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,400 and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,05,500 will be equally shared by the appellant Nos. 1 to 5. Sum of Rs. 14,100 awarded on account of loss of consortium will be exclusively payable to Sandesh Kumari, appellant No. 1. All the appellants will also be entitled to proportionate interest on this amount in terms of this judgment. Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2001, decided on 16.7.2003, in case titled as Sandesh Kumari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., stands modified in these terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Since insurance of the vehicle with respondent No. 1 is not in dispute, it is held that said respondent No. 1 shall be liable to deposit the awarded amount in terms of this judgment by or before 31.1.2005 in the Registry of this court. No costs.