Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Ler Kawar And Ors vs Babu Singh And Ors on 18 February, 2021
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 75/2010
1. Smt. Ler Kawar W/o Shri Purakh Singh, aged about 35
years.
2. Mukan Singh S/o Shri Purakh Singh, aged about 16 years
3. Gopi Kawar D/o Shri Purakh Singh, aged about 14 years
4. Devi Kawar D/o shri Purakh Singh, aged about 10 years
5. Kishan Kawar D/o Shri Purakh Singh, aged about 8 years
6. Sunder Kawar S/o Shri Purakh Singh, aged about 6 years
All by caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Aati, District Barmer
Appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are minor through their natural
guardian mother Smt. Ler Kawar W/o Late Shri Purakh
Singh
----Appellants
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46/2010
Umed Singh S/o Shri Jeevan Singh, aged about 25 years, by
caste Rajpurohit, R/o Purohito ki Basti, Village/Post Bandra,
District Barmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(2 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 47/2010
1. Shri Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Man Singh, aged about 42
years
2. Nemichand S/o Shri Devi Singh, aged about 11 years
3. Dinesh S/o Shri Devi Singh, aged about 8 years
4. Hakam Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, aged about 6 years
All by caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Bandra, District Barmer
Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural
guardian Shri Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Man Singh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/2010
1. Shri Lal Singh S/o Shri Jeevan Singh, aged about 40 years
2. Vijay S/o Shri Lal Singh, aged about 14 years
3. Than Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, aged about 11 years
4. Nirmala D/o Shri Lal singh, aged about 10 years.
All by caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Bandra, District Barmer.
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(3 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural
guardian Father Shri Lal Singh S/o Shri Jeevan Singh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 73/2010
1. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Umed Singh, aged about 23 years
2. Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Umed Singh, aged about 5 years.
3. Swaroop Singh S/o shri Umed Singh, aged about 3 years.
4. Ashok S/o Shri Umed Singh, aged about 2 years
5. Harwat Singh S/o Shri Man Singh, aged about 60 years.
All by caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Langera, District Barmer.
Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural
guardian mother Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Umed
Singh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(4 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 74/2010
1. Shri Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Man singh, aged about 42 years
2. Nemichand S/o Shri Devi Singh, aged about 11 years.
3. Dinesh S/o shri Devi Singh, aged about 8 years.
4. Hakam Singh s/o Shri Devi Singh, aged about 6 years.
All by caste Rajpurohit, r/o Village Bandra, District Barmer.
Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural
guardian shri Girdhari Singh S/o shri Man Singh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 77/2010
Shri Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Achal Singh, aged about 38 years
by caste Rajpurohit, R/o Purohito ki Basti, Village/Post Bandra,
District Barmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(5 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49/2010
1. Shri Nathu Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh, aged about 30
years.
2. Guddi D/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged about 12 years.
3. Khet Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged about 10 years.
4. Moti Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged about 6 years.
All by caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Aati, District Barmer.
Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural
guardian Shri Nathu Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o
Vill - Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 51/2010
1. Nathu Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh, aged - 30 years
2. Guddi D/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged - 12 years,
3. Khet Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged - 10 years
4. Moti Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged - 6 years
All by caste - Rajpurohit, R/o Village - Aati, District -Barmer,
Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian
Shri Nathu Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(6 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
Versus
1. Babu Singh S/o Balwsingh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vil. -
Bhiyad, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
[Driver - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
2. Poonam Singh S/o Hanwant Singh, by caste -Rajput, R/o Vill
- Bamnu, Tehsil - Phalodi, District - Jodhpur.
[Owner - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
3. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot
No.9, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura, Fly Over, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[Insurer - Bus No.RJ 15 P 0295]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar
Mr. Prashant Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Choudhary
Mr. Akshay Purohit
Mr. Mukul Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 18/02/2021 S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 136/2013 in S.B.C.M.A. No.51/2010 The present restoration application has been preferred for restoring the appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Judicial in furtherance of the order dated 03.10.2012.
No reply has been filed to the application for restoration. Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored at its original number. (Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(7 of 16) [CMA-75/2010] Learned counsel for the appellant prays for dispensing with the service of notice upon respondent No.2 Poonam Singh.
Ordered Accordingly.
The appeal No.51/2010 itself is taken up for hearing along with connected matters.
All these appeals are being decided by this common order as they arise out of a common judgment and award dated 06.10.2009.
Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 20.07.2008, at around 2:30 PM, deceased Jeewan Singh, Sushila, Devi Singh, Dariya Devi, Saku Devi, Narayan Singh, Purakh singh, Umed Singh and Dhai Kanwar while travelling in Jeep No. RJ 04 C 0217, met with an accident at Harsani Phata near PHED Office, Barmer. The accident occurred with a bus coming from the opposite direction having registration No. RJ 15 P 0295. The driver of the bus was Babu Singh. In these circumstances, claim petitions were preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased persons and the learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, adducing the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the same by a common judgment dated 06.10.2009.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred while dealing with the Issue No. 3 and exonerated the Insurance Company. He submits that while dealing with Issue No.3, learned Tribunal has held that since the driver of the bus Babu Singh was in the inebriated (drunken) state at the time of accident, therefore, the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal has also relied upon the statement of A.W.1 Umed Singh who, in his testimony has stated (Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM) (8 of 16) [CMA-75/2010] that at the time of accident, the driver of the bus was in a drunken state. Therefore, relying upon the testimony of Umed Singh and filing of the charge-sheet by the Police against the driver, the Tribunal has decided the issue No.3. The Tribunal has ignored the fact that no medical report with respect to the driver of the bus
-Babu Singh was in a drunken state at the time of accident was produced before it.
Counsel for the appellant contends that Babu Singh has been acquitted of all the charges including the charge framed under the MV Act vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2019.
There is no condition as per Section 149(2) of the MV Act which absolves the Insurance Company on account of the fact that if the driver of the insured vehicle has consumed alcohol, then the Insurance Company will not be liable to compensate the damages.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even in the reply filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, no defence has been taken that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the driver of the bus was in a drunken state at the time of accident.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.3 and submitted that if the driver of the insured vehicle was in a drunken state, then there is no question of fastening the liability with the Insurance Company as the fault squarely lies with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the policy between the insured and the insurer, if a person is driving the vehicle after (Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM) (9 of 16) [CMA-75/2010] consumption of liquor (alcohol) then the Insurance Company will not be liable to make good the damages. He further submits that even as per the public policy, if a person is permitted to drive the vehicle in an inebriated condition, then there is every possibility that such accident may happen. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the acquittal of the driver (Babu Singh) is only on the ground of extending him benefit of doubt and therefore, it cannot be said that he has not violated the conditions of policy while driving the vehicle. Therefore, no leniency would be extended in the present case and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. He therefore prays that at least the order for Pay and Recover from owner may be made in the present case.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as the relevant record of the case.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no medical report was filed to conclusively prove before the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was in the inebriated condition, has merit as in the absence of the medical report before the Tribunal, it could not have been held that driver was driving the vehicle after consumption of alcohol. It is also a fact that driver of the bus (Babu Singh) has been acquitted from the criminal charges including the charge of Section 185 of the MV Act vide judgment dated 02.07.2019. It is also noted that as per Section 149(2), no defence is available to the Insurance Company for non-payment of the compensation on account of the fact that driver of the vehicle (Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM) (10 of 16) [CMA-75/2010] insured with the respondent-Insurance Company was in a drunken state. It is also observed that the Insurance Company while replying to the claim petition has not set up a defence to the extent that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on account of the fact that the driver of the bus has driven the bus rashly and negligently as he was in a drunken state. Therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of AW-1 Umed Singh and filing of the charge- sheet against the driver of the bus cannot be held to prove that respondent No.3 Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in the present case. It is also noted that no evidence in support of the contentions raised by the Insurance Company was produced before the Tribunal to substantiate their submissions.
The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that as a public policy, nobody should be allowed to drink alcohol and then drive the vehicle is concerned, the same cannot fetter the claims preferred by the claimants in the present case and on that ground, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from the liability to pay the compensation.
The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that they may be allowed to pay the compensation and recover the same from the driver and owner of the bus is concerned, it is noted that neither the defence was set up before the Tribunal nor to that extent, pleadings were filed before the Tribunal. Thus, it is noted to be rejected.
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(11 of 16) [CMA-75/2010] The finding therefore, recorded on issue no.3 is quashed and set aside and it is held that the Insurance Company -respondent No.3 is liable to compensate the claimants in the present cases.
As far as the fact of quantum of damages is concerned, learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted the computation of compensation in the present cases in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157 which is as follows:-
(1)CMA 75/2010 (Smt. Ler Kanwar and Ors.) For future 10% of Rs.3,000/- Rs. 300/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 3,000/-+ Rs. 300/- Rs. 3,300/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 3,300/- / 1/5= Rs.
spent on himself. 660/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 3,300- Rs. 660=
Rs. 2,640/-
The age of deceased was 50 years, therefore, a multiplier of 11 will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 2,640 x12 x 11 Rs. 3,48,480/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs. 4,25,480/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,04,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,21,480/-
(2)CMA 46/2010 (Ummed Singh) The amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be justified. However, to meet the ends of justice, a lump sum amount of (Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM) (12 of 16) [CMA-75/2010] Rs.10,000/- is awarded as the same will constitute just compensation on account of death of Jeevan Singh in the present case.
(3)CMA 47/2010 (Girdhari Singh and Ors.) For future 40% of Rs.2,100/- Rs. 840/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 2,100/-+ Rs. 840/- Rs. 2,940/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 2,940/- / 1/3= Rs.
spent on himself. 980/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 2,940- Rs. 980=
Rs. 1,960/-
The age of deceased was 32 years, therefore, a multiplier of 16will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 1960x12 x 16 Rs. 3,76,320/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 33,000/-
Total Rs. 4,09,320/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,10,600/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 98,720/-
(4)CMA 48/2010 (Lal Singh and Ors.)
For future 25% of Rs.2,100/- Rs. 525/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 2,100/-+ Rs. 525/- Rs. 2,625/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 2,625/- / 1/3= Rs.
spent on himself. 875/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 2,625- Rs. 875=
Rs. 1,750/-
The age of deceased was 45 years, therefore, a multiplier of 14will be applied.
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(13 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
(I) Compensation due to 1750x12 x 14 Rs. 2,94,000/-
death
(II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs. 3,71,000/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,43,400/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,27,600/-
(5)CMA 73/2010 (Smt. Geeta Devi and Ors.) For future 40% of Rs.3,000/- Rs. 1,200/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 3,000/-+ Rs. 1,200/- Rs. 4,200/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 4,200/- / 1/4= Rs.
spent on himself. 1,050/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 4,200- Rs. 1,050=
Rs. 3,150/-
The age of deceased was 32 years, therefore, a multiplier of 16will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 3,150x12 x 16 Rs. 6,04,800/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs. 6,81,800/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,38,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 2,43,800/-
(6)CMA 74/2010 (Girdhari Singh and Ors.) For future 40% of Rs.3,000/- Rs. 1,200/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 3,000/-+ Rs. 1,200/- Rs. 4,200/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 4,200/- / 1/3= Rs.
spent on himself. 1,400/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 4,200- Rs. 1,400=
Rs. 2,800/-
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(14 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
The age of deceased was 35 years, therefore, a multiplier of 16 will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 2800x12 x 16 Rs. 5,37,600/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 33,000/-
Total Rs. 5,70,600/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,19,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,51,600/-
(7)CMA 77/2010 (Bhanwar Singh)
For future 10% of Rs.2,100/- Rs.210/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 2,100/-+ Rs. 210/- Rs. 2,310/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 2,310/- / 1/2= Rs.
spent on himself. 1,155/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 2,310- Rs. 1,155=
Rs. 1,155/-
The age of deceased was 60 years, therefore, a multiplier of 09 will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 1155x12 x 9 Rs. 1,24,740/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 33,000/-
Total Rs. 1,57,740/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 94,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 63,740/-
(8)CMA 51/2010 (Nathu Singh)
For future 40% of Rs.3,000/- Rs. 1,200/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 3,000/-+ Rs. 1,200/- Rs. 4,200/-
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(15 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 4,200/- / 1/3= Rs.
spent on himself. 1,400/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 4,200- Rs. 1,400=
Rs. 2,800/-
The age of deceased was 40 years, therefore, a multiplier of 15will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 2800x12 x 15 Rs. 5,04,000/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 33,000/-
Total Rs. 5,37,000/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,85,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,52,000/-
(9) CMA 49/2010 (Nathu Singh) The age of deceased Dhai kanwar is taken by the Tribunal between 30-35 years and thus, a multiplier of 16 has been applied whereas as per Exhibit-30-BPL Card, the age of the deceased is shown as 28 years and therefore, there is no reason to dispute the BPL Card produced in evidence by the appellant and thus, the age of the deceased Dhai kanwar is taken as 28 years. Accordingly, the multiplier of 17 is required to be applied instead of 16 as applied by the Tribunal.
For future 40% of Rs.2,100/- Rs. 840/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 2,100/-+ Rs. 840/- Rs. 2,940/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 2,940/- / 1/4= Rs.
spent on himself. 735/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 2,940- Rs. 735=
Rs. 2,205/-
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM)
(16 of 16) [CMA-75/2010]
The age of deceased was 28 years, therefore, a multiplier of 17 will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 2205x12 x 17 Rs. 4,49,820/-
death (II) Other Conventional Heads Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs. 5,26,820/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,93,800/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 2,33,020/-
Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the entire amount including the enhanced amount of Rs.1,21,480/- (in Appeal No. 75/2010),Rs. 10,000/-(in Appeal No. 46/2010), Rs. 98,720/-(in Appeal No. 47/2010), Rs. 1,27,600/- (in Appeal No. 48/2010), Rs.2,43,800/- (in Appeal No. 73/2010), Rs.1,51,600/-(in Appeal No. 74/2010), Rs.63,740/- (in Appeal No. 77/2010), Rs.1,52,000/- (in Appeal No. 51/2010), Rs.2,33,020/- (in Appeal No. 49/2010) as assessed by this Court after deduction of the amount, if any, already paid to the claimants in furtherance of the orders passed by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 06.10.2009. The ends of justice will be met if the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, till the same is paid.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 187-193, c-1,2/praveen/vivek/-
(Downloaded on 24/02/2021 at 08:24:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)