Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Narso Devi And Another on 10 August, 2016
Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar
Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIMA No. 119 OF 2011 AND CIMA No. 120 OF 2011 AND CIMA No. 121 OF 2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd Petitioners Narso Devi and another Sheela Devi and ors. Kanta Devi and ors. Respondent !Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate with Miss. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate. ^Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate, Mr. D.K.Khajuria, Advocate. Mr. Anil Mahajan, Advocate. Honble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge Date: 10.08.2016 :J U D G M E N T :
1. CIMA No.119/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narso Devi and another.
2. CIMA No.120/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Devi and ors.
3. CIMA No.121/2011 The National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Kanta Devi and ors.
4. CIMA No.122/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anita Rani and ors.
5. CIMA No. 123/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlo Devi and others.
6. CIMA No.124/2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sitalo Devi and ors.
7. CIMA No. 125/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohinder Kumar & anr 8. CIMA No. 126/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Simro Devi and ors.
9. CIMA No. 127/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakina Begum and ors.
10. CIMA No. 128/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Doori Begum and anr.
11. CIMA No.129/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asghar Ali and others.
12. CIMA No. 130/2011, MP No.742/2013 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaboon Bibi and ors.
13. CIMA No. 131/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anita Rani and ors.
14. CIMA No. 132/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Ramzan and ors.
15. CIMA No. 133/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Iqbal and ors.
16. CIMA No. 134/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafi and ors.
17. CIMA No. 135/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ali Mohd. & ors.
18. CIMA No. 136/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mangta and ors.
19. CIMA No. 137/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bibi and others.
2 20. CIMA No.138/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanker Dass and ors.
21. CIMA No. 139/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mangta and others.
22. CIMA No. 140/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nazir Ahmad and ors.
23. CIMA No.141/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shamim Khatoon and ors.
24. CIMA No. 142/2011, MP No.553/2012 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshano Devi and ors.
25. CIMA No.143/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kali Devi and others.
26. CIMA No.144/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keso Devi and ors.
27. CIMA No.145/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla Devi and ors.
28 CIMA No. 146/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niku Ram and ors.
29. CIMA No. 147/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dinu Ram and ors.
30. CIMA No. 148/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zarina Begum and anr.
31. CIMA No. 156/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ghulam Mohd and ors.
32. CIMA No. 157/2011, MP No.269/2012 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sureshta Devi and ors.
33. CIMA No. 158/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Romesh Chander and anr.
34. CIMA No. 159/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh Kumari and ors.
35. CIMA No. 160/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akbar and ors.
36. CIMA No. 161/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattan Chand and ors.
37. CIMA No. 162/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntla Devi and ors.
38. CIMA No. 163/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Dev Ram and ors.
39. CIMA No. 164/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and anr.
40. CIMA No. 165/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Karnail Singh and ors.
3 41. CIMA No. 166/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raqiba Khatoon and ors.
42. CIMA No. 167/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jail Chand and ors.
43. CIMA No. 168/2011, MP No.24/2012 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Umar Din and ors.
44. CIMA No. 169/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asghar Ali and ors.
45. CIMA No.170/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rachhpal Singh and ors.
46. CIMA No. 171/2011, MP No.307/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kulsooma Begum and ors.
47. CIMA No. 172/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinta Devi and ors.
48. CIMA No. 173/2011, MP No.309/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamit Singh and others 49. CIMA No. 174/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shastro Devi and ors.
50. CIMA No. 175/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Virender Singh and anr.
51. CIMA No. 176/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidya Devi and ors.
52. CIMA No. 177/2011, MP No.160/2012 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakti Devi and ors.
53. CIMA No. 179/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dewan Chand and ors.
54. CIMA No. 180/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Raj and ors. and ors.
55. CIMA No. 181/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Chand and ors.
56. CIMA No. 182/2011The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Insar Ahmad and ors.
57. CIMA No. 183/2011, MP No.D-538/2011 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angrezo and ors.
58. CIMA No. 184/2011MP Nos.834/2012 & 172/2014 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niku Ram and ors.
4Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge Appearing Counsel:
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate with Miss. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate. Mr. D.K.Khajuria, Advocate.
Mr. Anil Mahajan, Advocate.
Mr. B.S. Jamwal, Advocate.
Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate.
Mr.Anil Gupta, Advocate.
Mr. Nischal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate.
i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Press/Media ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Digest/Journal These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company seeking to modify the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua, for short, the Tribunal, on two issues, viz:- (1) That the Tribunal failed to appreciate that it was a clear case of over-loading and breach of condition of the policy, the bus capsized and resulted in death of 54 persons and injury to 17 persons. Since the policy covers only 42 passengers excluding driver and conductor, the insurance Company will be liable only in respect of 42 claims, however, subject to parameters laid down for satisfying the claims by the Honble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 ACJ 2129 which had arisen out of the same accident dated 06.11.1999.
(2) The second issue is for reduction of quantum of compensation.
The ill fated bus bearing Regd. No. JKR-8725 on 06.11.1999 was proceeding from Bani to Kathua, which was admittedly overloaded with passengers, capsized and consequently 54 persons died and 17 injured. Out of the above said accident about six claim petitions have been filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu and that matter went upto the Supreme Court wherein a decision has been 5 rendered in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam (supra). The plea of the appellant is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Anjana Shyams case (supra) the Insurance Company would at best be liable only for 42 passengers and thereafter it is the owner of the offending vehicle, who has to satisfy the award for rest of the claimants. In this case the Tribunal failed to grant that relief. It is further pleaded that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam and others 2011 ACJ 917, the Insurance Company should be given option of paying the compensation and recovering the same from the owner of the vehicle.
The Honble Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment Anjana Shyams case (supra) held that:-
16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself.
As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance 6 company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M.Poonam (supra), Honble the Supreme court in para 26, held as follows:-
26. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons traveling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case, 2007 ACJ 2129(SC). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case. In view of the first plea, foremost thing is to identify those 42 passengers for whom, Insurance Company is liable and other claims which the Insurance Company to satisfy and recover from the owner of the vehicle.
In terms of Anjana Shyams case (supra), 42 highest claims shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company and balance will be the liability of the owner of the vehicle, which, however, the Insurance Company will pay and it will be entitle to recover the same from the owner of vehicle as per K.M.Poonams case (supra).
Insofar, 2nd issue regarding reduction of compensation is concerned, the Court is inclined to take up each case separately.
7 CIMA No.119/2011The claimant-respondent herein suffered injuries on her right arm as well as legs and other parts of the body in the accident and became permanently disabled to the tune of 10%. The claimant was stated 25 years old at the time of accident and a government employee posted in the education department. The Tribunal has granted compensation in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, in the following manner:-
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs.40,000/-
3. For Hospitalisation Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.90,000/-
The only plea taken is that the Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- on account of hospitalization when as per her own statement before the Tribunal the claimant, being a government employee has received Rs.50,000/- as medical claim from the department, therefore, she is not entitled to get anything for hospitalization. This is justified. In this case, no amount was given for extra nourishment and attendant charges. Hence a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be adjusted as above. Claimant-respondent will be entitled to the same compensation along with interest in the following manner:-
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs.40,000/-
3. Cost of extra nourishment and attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs. 90,000/-
Modifying the head of award, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
8 CIMA No.120/2011For the death of Jai Singh, aged about 56 years, who was working as Inspector Malaria in Primary Health Centre, Bani, the widow and three children made claim for compensation. The MACT, Kathua found claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 entitled to compensation under the following heads:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,68,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium to widow Rs.15,000/-
4. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,13,000/-
The amount was ordered to be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. There is no serious dispute raised by the Insurance Company against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.121/2011For the death of Shruti Pal, aged 49 years, an employee of the finance department, widow, mother and three children made a claim. It was pleaded that the deceased was drawing the salary to the tune of Rs.8318/- per month at the time of accident. Besides, salary the deceased was earning Rs.1500/- per month by practicing as an astrologer. The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.8,400/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd therefrom and adopting the multiplier of 11, granted compensation under the following heads.
1. Total loss of income Rs.7,39,200/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,84,200/-
9Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal is lower whereas it should be 13. Further no amount has been given for loss of love and affection to the children and mother of the deceased. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is therefore not excessive. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.122/2011For the death of Sanku Ram, who was stated to be 36 years old at the time of accident and was serving in Indian Army, drawing Rs.8400/- per month, besides earning Rs.4000/- per month from agricultural work. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd of the income and adopting the multiplier of 14 as against 16, granted the compensation under following heads:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.13,44,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.13,89,000/-
The only plea taken by the appellant is that Rs.15,000/- granted on account of loss of consortium is erroneous because the widow also died in the accident. When admittedly the widow also died in the accident, the sum of Rs.15,000/- granted on account of loss of consortium is not correct and has to be deleted. The appeal is allowed to that extent and the other amounts are confirmed.
CIMA No.123/2011The claim of the claimants before the Tribunal was that deceased Lajju Ram, aged about 50 years, who was running the Karyana Store, died in the accident. The income of the deceased was stated to be Rs.6,000/- per month from Karyana shop and Rs.2,000/- from agricultural work. The deceased left behind widow and two 10 children. The Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and adopting the multiplier of 11 granted the compensation under the following heads:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.4,62,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,92,000/-
The plea taken by the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation by wrongly taking the age of the deceased as 50 years whereas age of the deceased was 60 years as indicated in the post mortem report, therefore, the compensation granted is excessive. However, based on the IInd schedule, the Tribunal adopted 11 as multiplier as against 13, which should have been taken based on the decisions prevalent then. In any event it is not excessive as pleaded. Moreover, no compensation was granted to the children on account of loss of love and affection of the father. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, same is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.124/2011For the death of Ram Dass, aged 32 years, who was carrying on the business of weaving pashmina shawls and selling blankets, the Tribunal by fixing the income at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd therefrom and by adopting the multiplier of 15, granted compensation in favour of the claimants i.e, mother, widow and three children along with interest @ 7.5% per annum under the following heads:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.6,30,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.6,75,000/-
11The plea of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has wrongly determined loss of income as Rs.6,30,000/- whereas it comes to Rs.5,99940/-. There is error in calculation, however, there is no need to reduce the compensation in view of the fact that the Tribunal has adopted 15 as multiplier as against 17. Moreover no compensation was granted on account of loss of love and affection to the mother and three children. The award is not excessive as such it does not need reduction.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.125/2011The claim of the claimant before the Tribunal was that he was 22 years, earning Rs.6,000/- per month by making steel boxes, suffered amputation of left leg because of the injuries sustained in the accident and has suffered permanent disabled to the extent of 45%. The Tribunal after fixing the income at Rs.5,000/- per month calculated the loss of income as Rs.2250/- per month. By adopting the multiplier of 15, granted compensation under the following heads:-
1. Loss of income Rs.4,05,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
4. For attendant Rs.1,00,000
5. Cost of limb Rs.1.00 lac (change of same for six times) Rs.5,00,000/-
Total Rs.12,05,000/-
The Insurance Company pleaded two issues, one is that interest on future loss of income and for future attendant charges cannot be granted and the second issue pleaded is that for replacement of artificial limb Rs.5,00,000/- has been granted which is excessive and submitted that in terms of decision of the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh 2003 ACJ 12.
12A 3-Judge Bench of Honble Supreme Court in para 29 of the judgment rendered in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singhs case (supra) held as under:-
29. In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, it has been pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and also change the artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expenses for this were Rs.18000/- and the High Court has awarded the said amount.
For change of artificial leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, if Rs.One lac is awarded as an additional compensation, appellant would be in a position to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said amount. Equally it is true that the said amount is required to be properly invested on long-term basis so that recurring medical expenses could be met. In view of the above said decision, considering the age of the injured claimant and cost of the limb which may be required to be replaced from time to time, the amount as granted by the Tribunal is just compensation as the injured claimant would require periodically surgical procedure at the time of change of the artificial leg in future. It is well settled that no interest can be granted in respect of compensation on future loss of income and also in respect of expenses to be incurred in future. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the interest granted by the Tribunal on future loss of income, future attendant charges and for cost for replacement of limb in the future alone shall stand deleted. The total quantum of compensation in the Award of the Tribunal is confirmed except the interest component.
CIMA no.126/2011In this case the claimants claimed before the Tribunal that the deceased Bishamber Dass, was 30 years old when he died in the accident. The deceased was serving as Accountant and was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month as salary.
13The Tribunal observed that if the deceased had been alive he must have got promotion and hence fixed the monthly income as Rs.9,000/- per month and deducted 1/4th from the same for expenses. By adopting the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded following compensation:-
1. Loss of income Rs.13,05,600/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.13,50,600/-
The quantum of compensation in this case is challenged on the ground that the income fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month as against Rs.6,000/- is excessive. The age of the deceased was 30 years. He was a government employee and the possibility of higher income in future is justified. Hence this Court finds no reason to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is not excessive. Moreover, no compensation has been granted for loss of love and affection to the daughter and parents of the deceased, hence award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. Appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.127/2011For the death of 40 years old, Mohd. Noorani, his widow and three children made a claim before the Tribunal. The income of the deceased was stated to be Rs.5,500/- per month as a tailor master. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, deducted 1/4th therefrom and by adopting the multiplier of 14, determined the loss of income as Rs.5,88,000/-. In appeal reduction is prayed by stating that as per post mortem report the age of the deceased was 45 years.
This Court on going through the award finds that even if the multiplier or the income is little higher, considering the age of the 14 deceased and his capacity to earn more and the fact that no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the three children, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive. There is no apparent reason to reduce the same. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No128/2011In this case the deceased was stated 14 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15, granted compensation under the following heads:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In this appeal, this Court finds no serious objection raised against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.129/2011In this case for the death of 9 years old boy, who was student at the time of death, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, adopting the multiplier of 15, granted compensation along with 7.5% interest per annum in the following manner:-
1. Loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In appeal this Court finds no serious challenge against the award by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed.
15 CIMA No.130/2011A claim was preferred by the widow and parents of deceased Irfan, who stated to have died in the accident. The age of the deceased was stated 30 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-, deducted 1/3rd and then adopting the multiplier of 16, awarded compensation under the following heads:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.6,72,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/ widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,17,000/-
In total an amount of Rs.7,17,000/- was awarded alongwith interest @7.5% per annum.
The nature of occupation of the deceased is in doubt. However, based on the evidence, the Tribunal has accepted that the deceased was a tailor and taking the age of the deceased as 30 years has assessed total loss of income as Rs.6,72,000/-. However, no amount was granted on account of loss of love and affection to the parents. In the appeal this Court finds no serious dispute on quantum to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Therefore the award is confirmed and appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.131/2011For the death of Dev Kali, who was 35 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by running dairy unit and Rs.3,000/- per month from agricultural work, a claim was made before the Tribunal by the three children of the deceased.
The Tribunal by fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, adopting multiplier of 15 awarded following compensation:-
161. Loss of income Rs.4,68,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,13,000/-
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that since husband of the deceased also died Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of consortium should not have been granted.
Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- granted for loss of consortium stands deleted from the award of the Tribunal. However, the three children will be entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection. The above amount can be adjusted.
The award of the Tribunal is therefore confirmed. Appeal dismissed.
CIMA No.132/2011For the death of Fatima Begum, aged 35 years, her husband and five children filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. It was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from agricultural work.
The Tribunal by fixing the income as Rs.4500/- per month, deducting 1/5th there from, adopting multiplier of 16, awarded following compensation:-
1. Loss of income Rs.6,72,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,17,000/-
The amount was awarded along with interest @ 7.5%.
17In the appeal this Court finds that there is no serious challenge against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Company stated that excess amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company. Excess amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company can be withdrawn.
CIMA No.133/2011In this case, the Tribunal for the death of 15 years old boy, who was student at the time of death, granted compensation in favour of parents and brother, along with interest @7.5% per annum, as follows:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In the appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, same is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.134/2011For the death of deceased Bitta, aged 14 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal after fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.2,25,000/- as loss of income and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for carrying the dead body (total Rs.2,55,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5.% from the date of application.
In the appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, same is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.135/2011For the death of Asgar Ali, an 18 years old, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, adopting the 18 multiplier of 15, granted Rs.2,25,000/- as loss of income, Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/0 as expenses for carrying dead body (total Rs.2,55,000/-) to the parents, one sister and one brother of the deceased, along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of application. In the appeal, there is no serious dispute/challenge against the quantum of the award. Hence the same is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.136/2011For the death of Mst. Ismaili Begum, aged 35 years, the Tribunal by fixing the income as Rs.4500/- per month, deducting 1/3rd therefrom and adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded following compensation along with interst @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.5,40,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,85,000/-
The award of the Tribunal is challenged only on the ground that there is no proof that the deceased was a tailor but there is no evidence to contradict the evidence on record. The deceased was 35 years old and the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.
Considering the age of the deceased and nature of profession as tailor master, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. Furthermore no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the daughter and other claimant. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The award stands confirmed.
19 CIMA No.137/2011In this case, for the death of Rustam Ganai, aged 52 years at the time of accident, who was stated to be a blacksmith by profession and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month, the Tribunal after fixing the income at Rs.4800/- per month and deducting 1/4th therefrom, adopting 9 as multiplier awarded the following compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the application.
1. Loss of income Rs.3,88,800/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.4,33,800/-
In the appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award is confirmed.
CIMA No.138/2011For the death of Lalit Sharma, aged 23 years old, who was running a provisional store, and was stated earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal after fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- deducted 50% for his personal expenses and by adopting the multiplier of 15 awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5.% from the date of application:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.4,50,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,80,000/-
20The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company stated that it is a case of death of a 23 years old bachelor, running provisional store. Parents are the claimants but the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier of 15 whereas taking into consideration the age of the parents, the multiplier should have been 13. Reliance in this regard has been placed on U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra and ors. 1996ACJ 831. 50% deduction in the case of death of a bachelor is to be made. However, in the case of a bachelor, age of the parents should be taken into consideration while determining the multiplier.
The Honble Supreme Court in Munna lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 held thus :-
15. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Compnay Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, is to be taken. To quote:
36. In sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants.
To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions-dedcutions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of 21 the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view of Sarla Verma. Applying the said principle to the facts of this case, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal based on the age of the deceased is correct and need not to be reduced. Furthermore no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.139/2011In this case for the death of Mukhtiar, age 13 years old at the time of death, who was stated to be rearing cattle and goats and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by adopting the multiplier of 15, granted compensation under the following heads along with interest @ 7.5.% from the date of application.
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal in this case. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.140/2011For the death of Mushtaq Ahmed, aged 14 years, who was a student at the time of death in the accident, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15 awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5.% per annum.
221. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.141/2011For the death of Mohd. Hasham, aged 30 years, who was stated a tailor master earning Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal after fixing Rs.5,000/-per month as income of the deceased, deducting 1/3rd therefrom, adopting multiplier of 16, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of application.
1. Total loss of income Rs.6,72,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.7,17,000/-
According to the Insurance Company, loss of income as per formula adopted by the Tribunal comes to Rs.6,39,936/- but the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the same as Rs.6,72,000/-, therefore, excess amount has been awarded for loss of income to dependants. Assuming that excess amount is granted on account of loss of income to dependents, considering the young age of the deceased and nature of profession, the award need not to be interfered with. This is so because no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the other three dependents, excluding the widow. Therefore, the 23 excess amount can be adjusted against loss of love and affection to the other three dependents. The compensation is not excessive. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.142/2011In this case for the death of Bhushan lal, a student, about 17 years old, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, adopting multiplier of 15 awarded compensation along with interst @ 7.5% per annum under the following heads:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, same is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
CIMA No.143/2011In this case for the death of Sh. Bachiter Singh, aged 50 year at the time of accident, who was class IV employee of the PHE Department and was earning Rs.4500/- per month as salary, the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month and considering dependency of nine persons, deducted 1/6th therefrom, adopting the multiplier of 11, granted following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application.
1. Total loss of income Rs.5,01,600/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.5,46,600/-
24In appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal dismissed and the Award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.144/2011For the death of Sh. Krishan Chand, aged 47 years, who was self employed, the Tribunal after fixing the income at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting 1/4th therefrom and by adopting the multiplier of 11, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.4,62,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,07,000/-
In appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.145/2011For the death of Mohinder Singh, aged 17 years at the time of death, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded compensation along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application, the detail of the award are as under:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In appeal, there is no serious dispute has been raised against the compensation awarded. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
25 CIMA No.146/2011In this case for the death of Sanjeev Singh, aged 20 years atthe time of death, who was stated working as daily wager, the Tribunal after fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15 awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the compensation awarded. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.147/2011For the death of Gian Chand, 42 years old and was a government employee, the Tribunal after assessing the income as Rs.7,000/- per month, deducting 1/4th therefrom and adopting the multiplier of 13, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum:-
1. Loss of income Rs.7,80,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.8,25,000/-
In appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the compensation awarded. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.148/2011In this case, for head injury to claimant/respondent No.1, the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/-.
26The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award of the Tribunal by stating that for the head injury Rs.1,00,000/- has been granted without proper reasons and evidence. A lesser amount should have been granted even assuming there is injury. Learned counsel for the appellant states that claimant has not suffered any permanent disability even as per the statement of the doctor. The Tribunal has not specified under what head the compensation has been granted. Compensation cannot be granted in arbitrary manner. The doctor in his statement has stated that the claimant must have residual problems. A mere statement of the doctor will be of no avail when there is no record placed before the Tribunal. The appellant is justified in contending as above. Claimants counsel is unable to justify the same.
Considering the fact that the injured/claimant was one of the passengers travelling in the bus and had suffered some injuries in the accident and remained under treatment, the Court is inclined to grant following compensation in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1:-
1. Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-
2. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
3. Extra nutrition Rs.5,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.3,000/-
Total Rs.28,000/-
Accordingly, the appeal by Insurance is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The claimant/respondent No.1 is held entitled to compensation of Rs.28,000/- as indicated above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till deposit.
CIMA No.156/2011In this case for the death of 17 years old boy, who was stated working as conductor, the Tribunal after fixing the income as Rs.4600/- per month, deducting 50% therefrom and adopting the 27 multiplier of 14, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.3,86,400/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,16,400/-
In the appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the quantum of compensation. Further no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the dependents.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.157/2011In this case for the death of Nasib Ram, aged 50 years, who was working as J.E. in the PHE Department at the time of death and was earning Rs.13221/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the loss of income at Rs.9,000/- per month and after adopting multiplier of 11, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.11,88,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.12,33,000/-
The only plea taken by the appellant- Insurance Company to challenge the award of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the loss of dependency as Rs.9000/- whereas by taking the income at Rs.13221/-, it comes to Rs.8814/-. Even assuming that loss of dependency assessed is little higher, the Tribunal was justified in doing so considering the future prospects.
28Further no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the son, therefore, the compensation awarded is not excessive. There is no reason to modify the compensation awarded. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.158/2011The claim of the claimant/respondent before the Tribunal was that he was 48 years old when he suffered injuries to the head in the accident and remained hospitalized for 10/12 days. The Tribunal granted following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application.
1. For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
2. For loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
3. For hospitalization and medical Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.1,30,000/-
The award of the Tribunal is challenged by stating that for medical expenses Rs.20,000/- has been granted as against Rs.4700/- supported by bill. However, the award does not require to be reduced because 48 years old, Junior Assistant has not been granted sufficient compensation for disability of 50% and for extra nutrition. Therefore, compensation awarded is just and reasonable and there is no reason to reduce the compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.159/2011According to the appellant-Insurance Company for the death of deceased Rattan Chand, aged 60 years, two claim petitions were filed, one bearing CP. No.336 by widow and another by widow and children bearing CP. No.406 and the Tribunal has awarded compensation in both the claim petitions for the death of one person.
29Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that one claim petition filed by the widow may be dismissed and other filed by the widow and children may be allowed. Accordingly, award granted in CP. No.406 granting compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application is confirmed and the award in CP No.336 granting Rs.2,61,000/- as compensation is set aside because two awards cannot be granted for the death of one person.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
CIMA No.160/2011For the death of Mohd. Din, aged 40 years, earning as Rs.6734/- per month by working as Havaldar in Police Department at the time of accident, the Tribunal fixing the monthly income at Rs.7,000/- per month, deducting 1/4th from the income and adopting the multiplier of 14, granted following compensation along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.8,40,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.8,85,000/-
In appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.161/2011For the death of Madan Lal, aged 24 years, the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting 50% therefrom and adopting the multiplier of 15, granted following compensation along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
301. Loss of income Rs.4,50,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,95,000/-
The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is challenged by the appellant-Insurance company on the ground that the multiplier applied is on the higher side, wrongly taking the age of the deceased as 20 years based on the Post mortem report. However, the quantum does not require any reduction for the simple reason that as pecuniary loss assessed by the Tribunal on account of death of a 24 years boy assessing his income at Rs.5,000/- is not excessive, considering the living wages and the date of accident. Marginal error in multiplier is not relevant when the compensation is just and reasonable.
In this case the amount granted for loss of consortium is an error as in this case the deceased was a bachelor. However, the amount granted under the head loss of consortium can be adjusted against the head loss of love and affection to the minor brother and parents. Therefore, in totality the award does not require any reduction. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.162/2011For the death of Ami Chand, 32 years, who was stated self employed working as carpenter and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixing the income at Rs.5,000/-, assessed the loss of income at Rs.3,500/- per month, adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded the following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
311. Loss of income Rs.6,30,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.6,75,000/-
The appellant-Insurance Company assails the award of the Tribunal by stating that the multiplier adopted is higher and the income fixed is also on higher side.
Considering the age of deceased and the nature of occupation and the future prospects, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.163/2011For the death of Bushan Kumar,18 years old boy, who was a student of 12th class at the time of death, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded the following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
Multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is disputed by the appellant- Insurance Company. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and the loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. No sufficient ground is raised in the appeal to reduce the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
32 CIMA No.164/2011The claimants claim before the Tribunal was that he was 25 years old and was government employee when he suffered multiple injuries in the accident. The permanent disability as per the disability certificate was assessed at 20%. The Tribunal by observing that the claimant has not suffered any loss of income, granted Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities of life as compensation, totalling Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application. In appeal, no serious dispute has been raised against the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.165/2011For the death of Surinder Singh, 21 years old bachelor, stated to be self employed agriculturist, the Tribunal by guess work fixed the income at Rs.5,000/- and deducting 50% thereform, adopting the multiplier of 15, granted following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application.
1. Loss of income Rs.4,50,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.4,80,000/-
The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is challenged by the appellant-Insurance company stating that the Tribunal has assessed the pecuniary loss based on the multiplier of 15 as Rs.4,50,000/-, which is on higher side. However, this Court finds that no amount was granted for loss of love and affection to the parents, brother and sisters.
33Considering the age of the deceased and the number of dependents, there is no reason to reduce the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.166/2011For the death of Mohd. Yasin, aged 30 years, who was serving as religious preacher and was stated earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixing the income at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting 1/4th therefrom, adopting the multiplier of 16, granted following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application.
1. Total loss of income Rs.7,10,400/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow Rs.15,000/-
Total 7,55,400/-
The appellant-Insurance Company assails the award by stating that though the deceased is claimed to be 30 years old but as per the post-mortem report he was 40 years old and there is no evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal has erred in adopting 16 as multiplier whereas the appropriate multiplier should be 15 and by taking the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and deducting 1/4th therefrom, the pecuniary loss comes to Rs.6,75,000/- only.
Assuming the proper multiplier is 15 and the total compensation comes to 6,75,000/-, there is excess of Rs.35,400/-. However, no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the four children to which they are entitled to. Hence the excess amount can be adjusted against the loss of love and affection to the children. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to reduce the compensation 34 awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.167/2011In this case for the death of Joginder Paul, aged 25 years at the time of death, who was working as chowkidar in the River Valley Project, the Tribunal after fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd therefrom, by applying the multiplier of 15, granted following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.6,12,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.6,57,000/-
The plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that higher multiplier has been adopted, therefore, the award of the Tribunal should be reduced. However, on going through the award, this Court finds that no amount was granted on account of loss of love and affection to the parent and minor daughter. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to reduce the quantum of compensation, which is just and reasonable.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.168/2011For the death of Bilkis Bano, who was 20 years old unmarried girl at the time of death, earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing tailoring, the Tribunal after deducting 50% from the income and applying the multiplier of 14, granted below mentioned compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.2,52,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-35
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,82,000/-
In appeal, there is no serious dispute as against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.169/2011For the death of Khurshida Begum, aged 34 years old at the time of death, who was doing domestic household work, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month, deducting 1/3rd therefrom, adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application:-
1. Loss of income Rs.5,40,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,85,000/-
The only plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and it should be Rs.3,000/- per month and not Rs.4,500/-. However, taking note of the fact that the claimants are son, daughter etc. of the deceased and since no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the children, the excess amount, if any can be adjusted towards that head of loss of love and affection. No ground made out for reduction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.170/2011The claim of the claimant before the Tribunal was that he was 53 years old when sustained injuries in the accident. The Tribunal held that there is no permanent disability as per the evidence let in by the 36 claimant. The Tribunal granted Rs.30,000/- for pain and sufferings along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of compensation granted to a policeman, who suffered injuries in the accident stating that Rs.30,000/- has been granted for pain and suffering without any reason. It is further pleaded that the claimant/respondent being a government employee must have withdrawn the medical bills from his department. Except photocopies of some medical bills, no medical record was produced. Therefore, there being no material to substantiate the injuries, the Tribunal was not justified in granting Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering. However, the claimant was one of the passengers, travelling in the vehicle, therefore, some amount can be granted for pain and suffering. Accordingly, Rs.10,000/- is granted for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for transport charges. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till deposit. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
CIMA No.171/2011For the death of 36 years old Riaz Mohd., who was serving in Jammu & Kashmir Police, the Tribunal after fixing his notional income as Rs.12,000/-, deducting 1/3rd therefrom, adopting multiplier of 14, granted following compensation along with 7.5% interest per annum.
1. Total loss of income Rs.13,44,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.13,89,000/-
37The appellant-Insurance Company assails the quantum of compensation on the plea that the higher income has been fixed by the Tribunal and same should have been reduced. As per LPC the deceased was drawing Rs.6700/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom, adopting multiplier of 14, the pecuniary loss comes to Rs.7,61,544/-.
The deceased was serving in J&K Police as SGC and number of dependents is more than six. Since the deceased was only 36 years old, he had bright future prospects. If the same is considered, the income determined is justified. Further no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to six children and parents. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to reduce the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.172/2011For the death of Mela Ram, aged 29 years, who was serving as teacher and was also doing the agricultural work at the time of death, the Tribunal taking his income as Rs.6,000/-, deducting 1/4th there from and adopting the multiplier of 16, awarded compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, in the following manner:-
1. Loss of income Rs.8,64,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.9,09,000/-
The main plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has wrongly granted compensation on account of loss of consortium to widow when the deceased was a bachelor.
38Such plea is justified. Accordingly, the award to the extent it grants Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of consortium is set aside. However, the marginal higher compensation as above can be adjusted for loss of love and affection to the parents and brother and sisters, because no amount has been granted to them against that head. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of holding that the claimants are held entitled to receive compensation in the following manner along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal:-
1. Loss of income Rs.8,64,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs. 15,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection to parents, brother and sister Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.9,09,000/-
The appeal is dismissed. The award is confirmed.
CIMA No.173/2011In this case for the death of Shashi Pal Singh, aged 26 years old bachelor at the time of death, working as gardener in Medical Department, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, deducting 50% therefrom, adopting multiplier of 16, granted compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, in the following manner:-
1. Loss of income Rs.4,80,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/ widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,25,000/-
The main plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the income of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal is excessive 39 and no amount should have been granted for loss of consortium because the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death. Insofar as plea of the Insurance Company for deletion of loss of consortium is accepted. However, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed considering the fact that no amount has been granted on account of loss of love and affection to the parents. The claimant is held entitled to the following compensation along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
1. Loss of income Rs.4,80,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs. 15,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.5,25,000/-
Appeal is dismissed. The award of Tribunal confirmed.
CIMA No.174/2011For the death of Dhanpat Ram, aged 43 = years at the time of death, serving in the J&K Panchayat, the Tribunal by guess work fixing his income as Rs.5,000/-, deducting 1/4th therefrom, applying the multiplier of 13, granted compensation in the following manner:-
1. Loss of income Rs.5,46,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.5,91,000/-
In appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
40 CIMA No.175/2011The claimant, who was 29 years old at the time of accident suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and was stated a government employee. This is not disputed by the appellant. It pleads that compensation is excessive.
The Tribunal after observing that loss of income is nil because the injured is a government employee, granted Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs.10,000/- for hospitalization and medicines along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application. The plea of the Insurance Company is that the quantum of compensation granted is excessive there being no material to substantiate the same.
This Court opines that Rs.3,000/- per percent of disability will be just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, for the disability of 40%, Rs.1,20,000/- can be granted. In this case, no amount has been granted for extra nutrition, attendant charges and expenses for transportation. Assuming that the award is marginally on higher side, the excess compensation in addition to pain and suffering can be adjusted against the above heads for which no compensation is awarded. Therefore, the award is just and reasonable and is confirmed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
CIMA No.176/2011In this case for the death of Prem Singh Choudhary, aged 55 years at the time of accident who was serving as Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms and drawing Rs.14,000/- per month as salary, the Tribunal after deducting 1/4th from the income of the deceased, adopting multiplier of 9 awarded compensation in the following manner:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.10,80,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-41
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.11,25,000/-
The appellant-Insurance Company assails the award of the Tribunal stating that the same is excessive and exorbitant. After going through the award of the Tribunal and the memo of appeal, it appears that there is no serious error pointed out in determining the compensation. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.177/2011The claimant in this case, a 14 years old girl at the time of accident, suffered 15% disability due to the grievous injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal, assessing the notional income as Rs.15,000/-, granted Rs.3,15,000/- on account of loss of income in the future due to disability, Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of amenities and Rs.1000/- for medical treatment and in total an amount of Rs.4,16,000/- has been granted along with interest @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application.
The plea of the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award of the tribunal is that interest on future loss of income should not have been granted. Therefore the compensation should be reduced. This plea is justified. However, the error in the award in not granting any amount on account of expenses for attendant charges and for extra nutrition, which should have been normally granted in injury cases. Therefore, the excess amount, if any, can be adjusted against the heads for which no compensation is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
42 CIMA No.179/2011For the death of deceased Dev Raj, aged 18 years old bachelor, who was stated earning Rs.5500/- per month, the Tribunal after fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting one-half there from, adopting the multiplier of 14, granted compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, in the following manner:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.4,20,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,50,000/-
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging quantum of compensation stating that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- and adopted multiplier of 16 based on the age of the deceased, whereas it should have been based on the age of the claimant.
Considering the age of the deceased, though a bachelor and the parents are dependents, the quantum of compensation is just and proper for the reason that the deceased was 18 years old and there is likelihood of future prospects insofar as income is concerned and that should have been taken into consideration. Moreover, no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents. Even otherwise, for the death of 18 years young boy, compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- is just and proper and is not excessive. The question as to whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased has already been considered in CIMA No.138/2011 by holding that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. In such view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
43 CIMA No.180/2011For the death of Ankush Kumar, 4 years old boy, who was a student at the time of death, the Tribunal after fixing the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded following compensation:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,55,000/-
In Appeal, no serious objection has been raised against the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.181/2011For the death of Sarda Devi, 27 years old spinster, who was stated earning Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal deducting 1/4th from the assessed income of the deceased, adopting multiplier of 16, granted compensation of Rs.6,21,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in the following manner:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.5,76,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.6,21,000/-
The plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that as against one-half deduction, deduction of 1/4th was made, which is erroneous and since the deceased was unmarried, loss of consortium should not have been granted and such plea is justified. However, considering the age of the deceased and her future prospects of income and the fact that no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents, sisters and brother, the 44 erroneous compensation granted for loss of consortium or the excess compensation, if any, can be adjusted against that head for which no compensation is awarded. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.182/2011The claimant, 13 years old, a student of 7th class at the time of accident suffered 18% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal, after fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month, adopting the multiplier of 14, granted Rs.2,70,000/- on account of total loss of income, Rs.75,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.75,000/- for loss of amenities (total Rs.4,20,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application.
The main plea of the appellant-Insurance Company in this case is that the Tribunal has granted interest on future loss of income, which is not justified. Interest component cannot be granted on future benefits. The plea is justified. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal insofar as it grants interest on Rs.2,70,000/-, granted on account of future loss of income, is set aside. Accordingly, the interest on future loss of income alone shall stand deleted and the claimant shall be entitled to interest only on Rs.1,50,000/- and not for loss of future income.
The appeal is partly allowed as above. The total quantum of compensation awarded is confirmed.
CIMA No.183/2011For the death of deceased Mohd. Shoqeen, 38 years old, tailor master by profession, the Tribunal fixing the income at Rs.4800/-, deducting 1/6th therefrom, adopting the multiplier of 14, the tribunal 45 granted compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in the following manner:-
1. Total loss of income Rs.7,05,600/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,50,600/-
Error in calculation is the main ground of appeal. It is stated that by taking the income as Rs.4800/-, deducting 1/6th therefrom, adopting the multiplier of 14, the loss of income comes to Rs.6,72,000/-. As per the calculation of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, there is difference of amount in a sum of Rs.33,000/-. That amount, however, can be adjusted towards loss of love and affection to the mother and ten children which has not been granted. Therefore, the award is not excessive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
CIMA No.184/2011For the death of Mohinder Pal, aged 45 years old at the time of accident, working as cook in the police department was earning Rs.4697/- per month as salary and was stated also earning Rs.2,000/- from other sources, the Tribunal fixing the income as Rs.5,000/-, deducting 1/4th therefrom, adopting the multiplier of 13, granted compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, in the following manner:-
1. Loss of income Rs.5,92,800/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Expenses for carrying dead body Rs.15,000/-46
4. Loss of consortium to widow/widower Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.6,37,800/-
The main plea taken is that the age of the deceased was wrongly taken as 45 years whereas it should be 51 years as indicated in the post-mortem report.
The question of age must have been addressed by the Tribunal based on the employment record. Therefore, there is no reason to discredit the same. However, plea of higher multiplier is also not justified because the multiplier adopted is 13 as against 15, which is applicable in this case. Moreover, no amount has been granted on account of loss of love and affection to the six dependents. In total the compensation not excessive and there is no reason to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
MP No.834/2012This application is dismissed. However, it is open to the applicants to move the Court below for appropriate relief. In the result the Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the awards in terms of this order. Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimantsrespondents after proper verification and excess to the appellant after proper discharge.
Before parting with the judgment, this Court records its appreciation to Miss Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate and other Advocates, who have wholly and sincerely assisted the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, which enable this Court to dispose of huge batch of appeals that has been pending for several years. This is one good example to show that with active co-operation from the members of the bar Courts can show great many disposal, 47 more particularly old cases which is stated to be the bone of judiciary despite the acute shortage of Presiding Officers at all levels. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is appreciated for disposing of the matter of multiple claimants which if not seriously pursued will get delayed for long number of years at the request of one or the other party.
(Ramalingam Sudhakar) Judge Jammu 10.08.2016 Vinod.