Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Om Pati And Others on 13 July, 2010
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K.Kannan
F.A.O.NO. 1731 OF 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.NO. 1731 OF 2009
Date of decision:13th July, 2010
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
.......Appellant
Versus
Om Pati and others
........Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes/No
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company both on quantum as well as on liability. The Tribunal had granted permission to the insurer to defend the case on all grounds.
2. On the question of liability, the Insurance Company pleaded that vehicle of the insured had not been involved at all in the accident. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer urges that the FIR had not given any details of the vehicle but had referred to an unknown vehicle as having caused the accident. There was evidence however, at the trial about the identity of the insured vehicle and the Tribunal has acted on such evidence. I do not want to upset the findings of the Tribunal as regards F.A.O.NO. 1731 OF 2009 2 liability.
3. The extent of liability by determination of appropriate compensation still survives for consideration. The deceased was said to be an unskilled worker was earning of Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal found that even if there was no evidence, it could be safely taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. If there was no evidence with reference to his employment status, the appropriate income that could have been taken as provided in Schedule II shall be Rs. 15,000/-. The annual income could have been taken as Rs. 15,000/-. The grievance of the appellant is that in a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the court should have taken note of that the deceased was a bachelor and with the prospects of marriage, the contribution to the parent could have been reduced and therefore, the court should have only taken 50% as going towards personal contribution. The deduction of 1/3rd and applying a multiplier of 11 when the claimant was 55 years of age were erroneous and excessive.
4. I notice that in the absence of proof relating to his income, if the minimum of Rs.15,000/- only should be taken as income of the deceased, it should have been possible for the Court to arrive at compensation by application of the Schedule II formula as prescribed under Section 163(A) of the Act which would be beneficial than the claim under Section 166 of the Act, where if the age of the claimant were to be taken for determination of the choice of multiplier and the contribution to F.A.O.NO. 1731 OF 2009 3 the family must be deducted upto 50% for the death of a bachelor, the ultimate compensation could be even less than what is provided in Schedule II.
5. In an appropriate case there is no bar for Court to apply any Section which is more beneficial. I would apply the claim which had been made as under Section 163(A) of the Act and as before the Schedule, if the income were to be taken as Rs. 15,000/- and 1/3rd shall have been deducted towards personal expenses, for death of a person who has aged 22 years the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 1,83,600/- and to this shall be added the compensation under conventional heads of Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- as loss to estate in the amount that will become payable as Rs. 1,88,100/-. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,74,000/- would stand reduced in the manner referred to above. The appeal is allowed in part. Therefore, shall be however, no directions as to costs.
[K.KANNAN] JUDGE 13th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik