Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd; Tp vs Sudershan Singh S/O Chamail Singh on 7 March, 2024
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Supp. Cause list-1
Sr. No.02
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: RP No.09/2024 in
[APP No.03/2022]
CM No.454/2024
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd; TP .....Petitioner(s)
Hub, Subash Nagar, Jammu through
its Manager Smt. Savita Bakshi, age
57 years
Through: Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate.
Vs
1. Sudershan Singh S/o Chamail Singh ..... Respondent(s)
R/o Phali Brahmina, Tehsil
Kalakote, District Rajouri.
2. Surinder Singh S/o Gurudas Singh
R/o Gagrote, Tehsil Nowshera,
District Rajouri (Driver of Maruti
Car No.JK02T-7858)
3. Pallvi Gupta D/o Sunny Gupta R/o
House No.F-306, Hari Singh Nagar,
Rehari Colony, Jammu (owner of
Maruti Car No. JK02T-7858)
Through: Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
07.03.2024
01. Issue notice to other side.
02. Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of non-
applicant/claimant No.1, contesting respondent. He has resisted the
application filed for condonation of delay.
03. However, keeping in view the contents of the application and
argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance
Company, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the review
petition is condoned. Disposed of.
04. Issue notice. Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate, waives notice on behalf of
non-applicant/claimant No.1.
05. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
06. Vide judgment dated 19.10.2023 this court awarded Rs.19,86,960/- as
compensation along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization of the whole amount in
favour of the appellant-claimant.
07. Mr. Amrit Sarin, counsel for the Insurance Company, has submitted
that the multiplier applied by this Court in appeal is '18' whereas it
should be '17' as per judgment in case titled National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680 keeping in view the age of the claimant. The interest was
also required to be reduced by this Court while allowing the appeal
filed by the claimant.
08. Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate, submits that there is no error apparent on
the face of record and the judgment passed by this Court does not
require any review.
09. The principles to be applied for review of the judgment are well
settled and to be seen review, if any, is required in the case in hand.
10. The Court is of the view that the argument raised by Mr. Amri Sarin
that the multiplier of '17' is required to be applied instead of '18', is
well founded keeping in view the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra). This court finds no impediment in reviewing the judgment
passed by this Court to that extent though counsel for claimant
submits that this aspect cannot be agitated in the present petition
though the multiplier of '17' was required to be applied. Accordingly,
multiplier of '17' instead of '18' shall be applied while calculating the
compensation.
11. As far as scaling down of interest to 6.5% instead of 9% awarded is
concerned the argument vehemently raised by Mr. Sarin in this regard
cannot be accepted. The Tribunal had passed award along with
interest pendente lite and future @ 9% per annum. It is to be noticed
that the Insurance Company did not file any appeal against the award
passed by the Tribunal but it was the claimant who had challenged the
award of the Tribunal, meaning thereby that the Insurance Company
had no grievance against the award passed by the Tribunal. The
discretion exercised by this court maintaining the interest awarded by
the Tribunal needs no interference. The court finds no reason to
review the interest component.
12. The review to the extent as mentioned above is allowed.
13. In view of the above, applying the multiplier of 17 in the case, the
total amount to which the claimant/appellant is held entitled to under
various heads is a under:
1. Income : Rs.15,000/- P.M.
2. Future prospects : (40% of Rs.15,000/- = Rs.6,000/-)
Rs.15,000 + Rs.6,000
=Rs.21,000/-
3. Multiplier : 17
4. Total income : Rs.15,42,240/- (Rs.21000 x 12 x 17 x
36%)
5. Pain and suffering
& loss of amenities: Rs.1,10,000/-
6. Medical Bill : Rs.1,30,000/-
7. Expenses for two
(2) attendants : Rs.54,000/-
8. Transport charges: Rs.50,000/-
9. Diet expenses : Rs.10,000/-
Total : Rs.18,96,240/-
Thus, the claimant/appellant is held entitled to Rs.18,96,240/- instead
of Rs.19,86,960/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of
the whole amount.
14. The review petition is partly allowed and compensation in favour of
respondent No.1 (claimant) stands modified in the aforesaid terms.
Disposed of.
( Puneet Gupta )
Judge
Jammu
07.03.2024
Narinder
