Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rani Devi And Others vs Unknown on 2 August, 2023
Sr. No.31
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Mac App No. 181/2020
Rani Devi and others .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Dalvinder Kumar, Adv.
vs
..... Respondent(s)
National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Through: Mr. D. S. Chouhan, Adv. and
Ms. Damini Singh Chohan, Adv. for No. 1
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
Oral
1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 10.11.2017 passed by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kathua(for short „the Tribunal‟) in claim
petition, titled, "Rani Devi and others vs Naresh Kumar and others",
whereby the respondent No. 1/insurance company has been directed to pay
an amount of Rs. 5,16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, to the
appellants. By the same award, the learned Tribunal also disposed of
another claim petition filed by one Ratno Devi and another.
2. The appellants/claimants have impugned the award on the ground that the
learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the appellants.
3. Ms. Surinder Kour, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the learned Tribunal has not rightly determined the monthly
income of the deceased and also no compensation on account of
enhancement of the income in future has been awarded. She further submits
Mac App No. 181/2020
that the compensation on account of loss of consortium too has not been
awarded.
4. Per contra, Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1/insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has
rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/,- more
particularly, in view of the fact that there was no documentary evidence on
record in respect of the income of the deceased.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. Since the only dispute in the present appeal is in respect of the quantum of
compensation awarded to the appellants, so there is no necessity to mention
in detail, the facts necessitating the appellants to file the claim petition
except to the extent that the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 i.e. the
parents of the deceased, namely, Sandeep Kumar and appellant No. 2 i.e.
the brother of the deceased filed a claim petition for grant of compensation
on demise of Sandeep Kumar in a road traffic accident on 25.08.2014. It
was pleaded by the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/-
per month from tuition work. It was also submitted that the aim of the
deceased was to join the Belt Forces and he had been selected in the Indian
Army, as such, he was expected to earn more than Rs. 30,000/- per month.
7. The record further depicts that the appellants examined Kulwant Singh in
support of their claim petition. As already stated above, two claim petitions
were decided by a common award. However, in respect of the income of
the deceased, the only evidence available on record is the statement of
respondent No. 3 i.e. the father of the deceased-Sandeep Kumar. In absence
Mac App No. 181/2020
of any documentary evidence in respect of the monthly income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs. 4500/-. The determination of the monthly income of the
deceased cannot be considered, to be contrary to the evidence. The
deceased was admittedly 19 years of age.
8. A perusal of the record further reveals that 50% of the annual income has
been deducted on account of his personal expenses and further the
multiplier of 18 has been applied while determining the loss of dependency.
However, it is evident that future prospects in respect of enhancement of
the earning of the deceased have not been taken into consideration.
9. As per judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v
Praney Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as the deceased was self-employed and
19 years of age therefore, his earnings were required to be enhanced at the
rate of 40%. By enhancing the earning of the deceased by 40%, the total
income of the deceased would be Rs. 6300/-(40%x4500=1800). As the
deceased was a bachelor, so 50% of the earnings are required to be
deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. By applying
the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes around to be Rs.
6,80,400/-(50%6300x12x18). Further, it is evident that no loss of
consortium has been awarded to the parents of the deceased i.e. appellant
Nos. 1 and 3. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18
SCC 130, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each is also required to be paid to appellant
Nos. 1 and 3 on account of loss of consortium.
Mac App No. 181/2020
10. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and modified as
under:
(i) Loss of dependency: Rs. 6,80,400/-
(ii) Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15000/-
(iv) Loss of consortium: Rs. 80,000/-
Total: Rs. 7,90,400/-
11. Further this Court finds that the interest at the rate of 9% has been awarded
which in the opinion of this Court should have been 7.5% per annum, as
such, 7.5% interest per annum shall be paid on the aforesaid amount from
the filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount
along with interest shall be deposited with the registry with in the period of
two months from today.
12. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
02.08.2023
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
