Smt. Renuka Gupta & Others vs The New India Assurance Company ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8017 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved
 
In Chamber
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1022 of 2000
 
Appellant :- Smt. Renuka Gupta & Others
 
Respondent :- The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shamim Ahmad,Ram Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Shailendra Kumar Agrawal,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District and Sessions Judge 9th, Kanpur Dehat in M.A.C.P. No.137 of 1998 (Smt. Renuka and others Vs. Smt. P. Sri Ranga Nachiar and others) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith 12% interest per annum to the appellants-claimants inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal did not apply Rule of Multiplier in granting compensation; has not given any compensation towards the loss of expectation of life; has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium to the widow; has not awarded any compensation to the children for loss of love and affection; and has also not awarded any amount towards overhead expenses.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on the day of incident Dr. Vidya Sagar Gupta (deceased) was standing beside the Road and he was going to Government Hospital for his duty. At that time the truck bearing registration no. TM-09/Z-3123 came. This truck was driven by the driver rashly and negligently and without blowing the horn, he got struck the said truck with Vidya Sagar Gupta, due to which he sustained serious injuries and succumbed due to the said injuries. The FIR of the incident was got registered in case crime no.2 of 1998, under Sections 279/ 304 IPC. Smt. P. Sri Ranga Nachiar was the owner of the said truck and the truck was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. Accordingly, the claimants filed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs.42.96 lacs.

4. The respondent-owner of the said offending truck did not choose to contest the claim petition. The claim petition was contested by the respondent-Insurance Company by filing the written statement wherein it was pleaded that no such incident occurred by the aforesaid truck; that it is not proved that Dr. Vidya Sagar was veterinary doctor or that he was posted at Veterinary Hospital, Rajpur or his income was Rs.15,000/- per month or that the truck in question was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company at the time of incident; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is too excessive and, as such, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. In support of the allegations made in the claim petition appellant-claimant no.1 examined herself as PW-1 and one Raj Kumar as PW-2; and also filed a copy of FIR, charge-sheet of Dr. Vidya Sagar, death certificate, postmortem report, registration certificate and Insurance Policy of the offending truck. No evidence was produced by the respondents. The respondent-Insurance Company produced the verification report 25-Ga, by which the Insurance Company has accepted that the aforesaid truck was insured with it and the driver was having valid driving licence.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that apart from this, the Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding to calculate the compensation by awarding a lump-sum amount inspite of the fact that the deceased was a salaried Government servant and was an income tax payee. He further submits that neither the factum of multiplier nor the overhead expenses and the future prospects have been considered. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not considered keeping in view of the consortium head for which, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121, and Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the claim has rightly been awarded and so far as the interest awarded to the appellants is concerned, the same is on the higher side, but he also conceded that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the rule of multiplier and also the factum of overhead expenses as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act and concerned Rules.

8. The learned Tribunal framed issue no.1 regarding the accident and rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck no. TN-09/Z-3123. This issue has been decided affirmatively in favour of the appellants-claimants as no evidence has been led by the respondents. The factum of accident has also not been challenged before us. As regards driving licence and insurance of offending vehicle is concerned, the Insurance Company itself has admitted that the aforesaid truck was insured with it and the driver was having valid driving licence.

9. The Tribunal is under obligation to award just and adequate compensation which is fair, equitable and adequate compensation, on the facts and circumstances, to make good the loss suffered by the dependents of deceased.

10. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing the compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death by adopting the multiplier system as mentioned in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act with reference to the age of the deceased. The age of the deceased was 44 years. The multiplier ought to have been adopted as 15 for age from 40 - 45 years. There is no dispute regarding annual income of the deceased. In the light of the decisions in the cases of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra), and Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the Tribunal is also under obligation to consider the factum of future prospects as the deceased was a permanent Government employee. In the light of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) having considered the age of the deceased, the Tribunal was under obligation while determining the income, an addition of 30% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

11. Coming to the issue relating to consortium head and other overhead expenses, we find that the Constitution Bench has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded nothing. The aforesaid amounts are, therefore, admissible to the claimants. We, therefore, accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the Tribunal has to recalculate by adopting the multiplier and also awarding other overhead expenses under all the heads as mentioned above.

12. As regards submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that the interest has been awarded on the higher side, we do not find any reason to calculate for the same as there is no cross-objection of the award of interest. However, the question of excessive interest is concerned after recalculation of the whole award the appellants-claimants would be entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount awarded upto the limits of Rs.5,00,000/- amount and would get 7% per annum interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of this petition.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The Tribunal shall proceed to recalculate the entire amount as per the directions made herein-above within a period of three months from today.

14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 15.12.2017

Anoop