MA/171/2007 of UNITED INDIA INSUREANCE CO.LTD. Vs KRISHNA DEVI AND ORS. on 30 December 2010

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMUCIMA No. 1/71/2007Date of Decision: 30.12.2010.

United India Insurance ComDanLtd. Vs Krishna Devi & Ors. |Coram:

Mr. Justice J. P. Sin+$,JUG+eC

Appearing Counsel

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate. |For ResDondent/S0: Mr. Y.P.Kausnal,Aavocate. |

i)Whether approved for reportingIn Press/Journal/MediaYes/Noii)|VVhetner to be reportedin Digest/Journal |Yes/No.

Krishna Devi-respondent’s Claim for compensation for the|

death of her son Raj Kumar, who, received head injury, besides”other multiple injuries while sitting In his Autoriksnaw nearCinema Hall, Katra, when hit by a rashly and negligently drivenBus No. DLIP-1521 on February 2/7, 1999, was allowed by theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi vide its Award of August31, 2007, directing the United India Insurance Company Limitedto pay her Rs.3,81,400/- along with interest, as compensation,finding that her son had died because of the injuries received inthe accident, which had occurred as a result of the rash and_negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DLIP-15271.

Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has.appealed to this Court.

Appellant's learned counsel submitted that the quantum ofcompensation awarded by the Iribunal as payable to therespondentWasexcessive|navingpeendetermined ?

adopting untenable method for assessment of compensation.The finding of the Tribunal on the income of the deceased at thetime of nis death too nas been assailed as unwarranted.

Relying on.Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi TransportCorporation and another,reported as 2009 ACJ, 12987jearnedacounsel! for the claimant submitted that the Award Impugned inthe Appeal, holds the claimant entitled to such amount ofcompensation which, by no stretch of reasoning can be termedas unjust, and even if the multiplier method, as suggested by theappellants counsel, were to be adoptead to assess thecompensation, the same amount of compensation, as assessedpy the I[ridbunal, would become payable to the claimant thuwarranting no interference with the Award in Appeal.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the|parties and perused the records.

The appellant-Ilnsurance Company did not produce anyevidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant, and the Tribunalhad, therefore, to consider the claimants evidence alone todetermine the compensation payable to the claimant for thedeath of her son In the motor vehicular accident.

The Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the.deceased at Rs.4000/-, finding the claimants plea that her sonwould earn Rs.6000/- per month, exaggerated, by adopting theUnitary system. The dependency of the mother on the income ofthe deceased was assessed at Rs.2/00/- per month. Taking the 3ageOT|theaeceasedInto consideration, the multiplier of18 prescribed for the age group of persons between 25 to 30years, has been scaled down by the I[ribunal to 11 to assess thecompensation payable to the claimant.

The finding of the Tribunal in assessing the dependency of,the claimant on the income of the deceased is found untenable.because the age of the mother and the number of years she was"likely to survive, in the ordinary course, needing compensationfor her sustenance, have not been taken into consideration bythe Tridbunal wnile assessing compensation.

Although the Tribunal has erred in assessing the|compensation payable to the claimant yet Keeping In view thefact that the accident had taken place more than 11 years ago, itwould be appropriate for this Court to determine thecompensation payable to the claimant, itself, in terms of Section168 of the Motor Vehicles Act rather than directing the remand ofthe case.

The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and was a driver by profession. He owned his own Autorikshawfrom where he would earn for his own sustenance and for the.sustenance of his mother. —

In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case,Rs.1500/- needs to be added towards the future prospects of thedeceased in earning more in the years to come, in the income ofthe deceased. The finding of the Tribunal holding the income _

Aof the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4000/-, Is_supported by the evidence on records and in the absence of anyevidence in rebuttal, no interference tnerewith may bewarranted.

Thus calculating the dependency of the claimant, on the.Income of the deceased, Including therein the future income ofthe deceased, the dependency of the claimant would come toRs.2/50/- deducting 50% out of the so ascertained income of theaeceased that he would nave spent on his own, nad ne Survived.

According to the guidelines laid aqown In Sarla Vermas|case, 11 Is indicated as the appropriate multiplier for the agegroup of the claimant at the time of the accident. Which,according to ner evidence, was less than 95 years.

Thus, in the circumstances, finding 10 as_ the suitable.multiplier and taking Rs.2/750/- as the monthly dependency ofthe claimant-mother on the income of her deceased son, the)compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her sonon whom she was wholly dependent comes to Rs.3,30,000/-..Adding Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- forloss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, the totalcompensation payable to the claimant would come _ tRs.3,55,000/-.

The Award of the Tribunal, in view of the above findings, therefore, needs to be modified.

Accordingly, setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on)

the question of assessment of compensation, its Award is »

modified as Award for an amount of Rs.3,559,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of theClaim Petition.|

This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above.modification in the Award. —

Tne amount wnicn ts in deposit in this Court in the Appealshall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant in terms ofthe modified Award minus the amount alreaay received by herduring the pendency of the Appeal and the Claims Petitionbefore the | rinunal (J. P. Singh)Judge|

JAMMU:|30.12.2010|Pawan Chopra*