The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs V. Vaidehi And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1415 AP

              THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI


                   M.A.C.M.A. No.2665 OF 2006.

JUDGMENT:

The award in O.P.No.178 of 2003, on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge,

Tirupati, is assailed in the present appeal by the Oriental

Insurance Company Limited with whom the offending vehicle

bearing No.5472 is insured by the 4th respondent herein primarily

on the two grounds:

i) one of the grounds over which more emphasis is laid by the insurance company is that the multiplier 15 is applied instead of multiplier 14 though the evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was aged about 41 years by the date of his death.

ii) the second other ground raised by it is that ignoring the documentary evidence put forth by it in the form of Ex.B.2, the copy of the income tax returns of the deceased V. Bhaskarnaidu, his income is taken at Rs.14,113/- for determination of the compensation amount.

I have perused the award impugned. Since it is apparent

from the grounds mentioned above, that the amount of

compensation awarded alone is disputed raising a contention that

a wrong multiplier is applied; and that Ex.B.2 income tax returns

of the deceased is not taken into consideration while computing

the compensation, I am not inclined to go into other aspects

mentioned in the award.

The respondents 1 to 3 are the wife and the parents of the

deceased. They have produced Exs.A.2 and A.5 the certified copies

of the inquest report and post-mortem report of the deceased

where his age is mentioned as 41 years. The wife of the deceased

has also stated in her evidence that her husband is aged about 42

years by the date of his death. Since the deceased is aged about

41 years by the date of his death as per Exs.A.2 and A.5, the

multiplier to be applied is 14, but not 15.

Placing on reliance of Ex.A.3 salary certificate of the

deceased, the annual loss of income of the deceased is determined

at Rs.1,21,713/- by the Court below.

As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma

(Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1,

the appropriate multiplier is to be applied in the present case is 14,

as the deceased was aged about 41 years by the date of his death.

The Court below wrongly applied the multiplier 15 as per the

second schedule of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The insurance company in the instant case seems to have

taken yet another plea that the Court below ignoring Ex.B.2, the

income tax returns where the gross salary of the deceased

mentioned is showed as Rs.1,21,730/-, has placed reliance on

Ex.A.3 salary certificate where his monthly earnings are mentioned

as Rs.14,113/- though as per the established principle of law the

net salary of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for

determination of compensation. Thus, the grievance of the

appellant-insurance company that the net salary of the deceased

has not been taken into account to assess the compensation, and

in that view of the matter, as per their contention, the award under

challenge is suffering from patent illegality.

(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121

The claimants have examined P.W.3 to speak about the

earnings of the deceased and that P.W.3 during the course of his

evidence deposed that had the deceased been alive, his pay scale

by the date of his retirement would have reached to Rs.40,000/-.

Ex.B.2 income tax returns is of the assessment year 2000-2001,

whereas the death of the deceased occurred in the month of

October, 2002. If such is the case, the hike in salary of the

deceased in between the date of submission of Ex.B.2 income tax

returns and the death of the deceased is quite natural. In that

view of the matter, the Court below cannot be faulted to assess the

annual loss of income to the claimants in view of the death of the

deceased at Rs.1,13,604/-. If the amount so arrived is multiplied

by 14, the compensation which the claimants will get under the

head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,90,456/- but not

Rs.16,95,960/- that has been awarded by the Court below. Since

the award is altered only to the extent of the compensation

awarded to the claimants under the head of loss of dependency on

applying multiplier 14, the claimants in addition to the amount of

Rs.15,90,456/- are entitled to receive compensation awarded to

them under the other heads such as consortium, funeral

expenditure and thus they are entitled to receive Rs.16,17,456/-

(Rs.15,90,456/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.2,000/-= Rs.16,17,456/-) with

interest and costs awarded by the Court below as the rest of the

award passed by it has remained unaltered.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the insurance

company is allowed partly. No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

also stand disposed of.

________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.05.03.2021.

Gk

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

M.A.C.M.A. No.2665 OF 2006.

Date:05.03.2021.

Gk.