Uttarakhand High Court
Smt Munni Devi And Others vs Manish Sharma And Another on 25 October, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.55 of 2010
Smt. Munni Devi & others. .... Appellants
Versus
Mr. Manish Sharma & another ........ Respondents
Mr. L.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Deep Chand Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award. The accident occurred on 10.08.2008 by Scooter (bearing no.UK-04-F-3522).
Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the Claim Petition but at the same time, the accident and the insurance cover were not denied, so, the Tribunal concerned granted the award to the tune of Rs.2 lakh 23 thousand including the consortium at the funeral expenses.
In the appeal, service has been effected upon the Insurance Company but none has turned up on its behalf and the owner of the vehicle has appeared through his counsel Mr. Deep Chand Joshi.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the multiplier of '8' has been applied on the basis of a case, namely, "New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Kalpana" reported in 2007 (2) SCC (Cri.) Page 94. I have perused the above judgment and found that in that matter, the deceased was about 33 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal, while evaluating the compensation, had applied the 2 multiplier of '17'. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in absence of any definite material about the monthly income of the deceased, after deducting towards personal expenses, found it proper to apply the multiplier of '13'.
In the present controversy, learned Tribunal has not disclosed as to on what consideration the application of multiplier '8' has been chosen instead of '11' as has been envisaged under the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, nay as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of Sarla Verma, which had also been pronounced on 15.04.2009.
It is possible that at the time of adjudication of the judgment under appeal on dated 07.12.2009, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal may not be knowing the principles laid down in the Sarla Verma's Case but either he should have disclosed the reasons for reducing the digit of multiplier or would have applied such digit, as has been contemplated under the Schedule of the Act, which is also not less than '11'.
As regards the granting of medical expenses, there is an established principle that if the deceased has lost his life and succumbed to his injuries, then such medical expenses cannot be reimbursed, therefore, the only infirmity, which is apparently noticed is that of the application of multiplier, which is lesser than what ought to be.
If I apply the multiplier of '11' instead of '8', then the amount of compensation comes to rupees two lakhs ninety seven thousand. This Court does not 3 disturb the amount of rupees two thousands and five thousands, which has been granted by the Tribunal in other scores. So, the total amount of compensation comes to rupees three lakhs four thousand.
This appeal is hereby allowed and the award is modified to the tune of rupees three lakhs four thousand. The earlier amount, which has been paid by the Insurance Company, shall be adjusted in the modified award. The difference will be paid adding 6% annual interest from the date of institution of petition.
Let a certified copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the Tribunal concerned for information and compliance.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 25.10.2016 Ravi