Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 1502 j&K

                                                                   Sr. No.22
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU
                                              Mac App No. 209/2020
                                              CM No. 8230/2020

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.            .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Ltd.
                       Through: Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Advocate
                 Vs

                                                               ..... Respondent(s)
Sunit Kumar and ors.
                       Through: Mr. Anuj Magotra, Advocate

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                               ORDER (ORAL)

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the award dated

29.09.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant has been

directed to pay an amount of Rs. 13,77,200/- (Thirteen Lacs Seventy Seven

Thousand Two Hundred only) along with interest @7.5% from the date of

filing of the claim petition till its realization, except for an amount awarded

on account of loss of future earnings to the claimant/respondent No. 1.

2. The appellant has impugned the award on the ground that the learned

Tribunal has erred in considering the income of respondent No. 1 as Rs.

15,000/- per month without there being any substantial proof of the same and

the award is contrary to the judgment passed by this Court in case titled,

'New India Insurance vs. Usha Baloria & Ors'.

3. Mr. Sunny Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned Tribunal has relied upon the salary certificate, wherein monthly

income of respondent No. 1 was shown as Rs. 15,000/- and there was

nothing on record to establish that respondent No. 1 was paying any income

tax. He further submitted that during the financial year 2010-11 when the

accident took place, no tax was payable for an income upto Rs. 1,60,000/-.

4. Mr. Anuj Magotra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1

submitted that respondent No. 1 had proved the salary certificate but still the

annual income of the respondent may be considered as Rs. 1,60,000/.

5. As dispute in the present appeal is with regard to quantum only, as such,

there is no necessity to mention in detail, the pleadings as well as evidence

led by the contesting parties except to the extent that respondent No. 1, who

was 30 years of age and suffered 30% disability due to post traumatic

restriction range of movement of left knee on account of injuries suffered by

respondent No. 1 in motor vehicular accident on 02.02.2011 at TCP Alfa

Gate, Rajouri. Respondent No. 1 was working as a motor mechanic and he

had proved the salary certificate issued in his favour by his employer and as

per the salary certificate-EXP-RK, respondent No. 1 was getting a monthly

salary of Rs. 15,000/-.

6. A perusal of the award impugned reveals that the learned Tribunal has

awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 under

the following heads:-

1. Loss of future income = Rs. 12,85,200/-

2. Expenditure for two attendants = Rs. 27,000/-

            3. Damages on account of            =   Rs. 25,000/-
               pain and sufferings
            4. Loss of amenities                =   Rs. 20,000/-
            5. Transport charges                =   Rs. 15,000/-
            6. Diet expenses                    =   Rs. 5000/-
               Total                            =   Rs. 13,77,200/-

7. There is evidence on record that respondent No. 1 was working as a

mechanic but no ITR return has been placed on record to prove that the

respondent No.1 was paying any income tax. This Court is of the considered

view that annual income of respondent No. 1 can be considered as Rs.

1,60,000/-. The monthly salary is rounded off to Rs. 13,300/. The annual loss

of income after enhancement on account of future prospects would be Rs.

67,032. By applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation payable to

respondent No. 1 comes around to Rs. 11,39,544/-. So far as compensation

awarded to respondent No. 1 under other heads, this Court does not find any

reason to show indulgence. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and

total compensation payable to respondent No. 1 shall be Rs. 12,31,544/- and

interest component shall remain the same. Modified amount be released in

favour of respondent No. 1 after due identification by his counsel and

balance amount be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company.

8. At this stage, Mr. Anuj Magotra, Advocate submits that name of respondent

No. 1 has been rectified as Sumeet Kumar instead of Sunit Kumar and

parentage of respondent No. 1 has also been rectified as Hans Raj in place of

Harbans Raj by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2023. Registry

to rectify the names in the cause title of the appeal also.

9. Record of the tribunal be sent back.

10. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

Jammu 04.08.2023 Neha-II