Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sangeeta Seth And Others on 17 July, 2012
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2811 of 2012
Petitioner :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Sangeeta Seth And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Amit Singh
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma,J.
The appellant has filed copy of claim petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 2 before the Tribuna by way of supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.
Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 21.04.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Bareilly in M.A.C.P. No. 247 of 2011, whereby a sum of Rs. 31,41,469/- with pendent elite interest @ 6% have been awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The appellant is the insurer of Maruti Van UP 25E/2023 and its driver has been found responsible for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving of the car which dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased on 09.02.2011 at about 10.40 P.M. It was alleged that seeing the Maruti Van the driver of the motorcycle parked his vehicle by the side of the road and Maruti Van knocked down the deceased and his wife and they were seriously injured. Vijay Kumar Seth who was accompanied by his wife had sustained injuries died on 17.03.2011. The widow and children of the deceased filed claim petition which had been allowed and the appellant had been directed to indemnify the award. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The only point raised before us is about the multiplier used by the Tribunal in quantifying the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. It has come in evidence that the deceased aged about 52 years was employed as Manager in Punjab National Bank. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of '11'. The income of the deceased in the assessment year 2010-11 was 4,67,388/-. A sum of Rs. 69,972/- have been deducted as income tax and the balance amount of Rs. 3,97,416/- has been taken for calculating the compensation. The deduction of 1/3 for personal and living expenses of the deceased was made and applying multiplier of '11' the compensation had been quantified. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have lowered the multiplier because the multiplicand was on higher side. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and another, AIR 2002 SC 2607. The Apex Court in this case has observed:
"Ordinarily while awarding compensation the provisions contained in the second schedule may be taken as a guide including the multiplier, but there may arise some cases which may fall in the category having special feature or facts calling for deviation from the multiplier usually applicable. By applying a multiplier other than the schedule multiplier does not mean that any method other than multiplier method has been applied. For some special reasons some deviation from the scheduled multiplier can be made."
In the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2009(2)TAC 699 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176, UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (4) SCC 362 and Schedule-2 of the Motor Vehicle Act has prescribed a table in para-19 directing to use the multiplier shown in column no.4 of the table for various categories of various age below of the deceased mentioned therein. For the deceased aged between 51 to 55 years multiplier of '11' has been prescribed. The deceased was Manager in Punjab National Bank. The endeavour of the Tribunal is to put the family in pre-accident position. The claimants are widow and two young children of the deceased who require good education and they are of marriagable age. The widow of deceased would require sufficient funds to meet her obligations in setteling the respondents no. 2 and 3 in their family life. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not erred in taking multiplier of '11' for awarding compensation to the claimants in this case.
In view of above, we do not find any factual or legal error in the impugned award. The appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
The Registry is directed to remit the statutory deposit to the concerned Tribunal within four weeks. However, the dismissal of the appeal will not affect the rights of the other parties.
Order Date :- 17.7.2012
Imroz
