Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Gayitri Devi Wife Of Late Onkar Nath ... vs Election Commission Of India on 3 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 279 of 2016
1. Smt. Gayitri Devi wife of late Onkar Nath Bhagat
2. Priyanka Rani daughter of Late Onkar Nath Bhagat
3. Alka Rani daughter of Late Onkar Nath Bhagat
4. Smt. Manti Devi wife of Sri Ramji Bhagat
The appellant no.3 late a minor has attained the age of majority.
All resident of village Durgapur,
Post: Kamargama, P.S. Sangrampur
Via - Tarapur, District - Munger (Bihar) ... Appellants
Versus
1. Election Commission of India
Through District Election Office
Post and P.S. Giridih
District - Giridih PIN Code 815301
(Jharkhand)
2. District Election Officer
District Election Office
Post and P.S. Giridih
District - Giridih, Pin Code 815301
(Jharkhand)
3. Deputy Election Officer
District Election Office
Post and P.S. Giridih
District - Giridih Pin Code 815301
(Jharkhand)
4. State of Jharkhand
Through Deputy Commissioner
Post and P.S. Giridih, District - Giridih
Pin Code 815301 (Jharkhand)
5. Akhtar Hussain son of Md. Usman
Resident of village - Yogitand
P.O. Chaitadih, P.S. Giridih (Muffasil)
District : Giridih (Jharkhand)
Pin Code - 815302
6. Chotu Thathera son of Late Mahabir Thathera
Resident of Whitty Bazar, P.S. Giridih Town
Post and District - Giridih
(Jharkhand)
7. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Branch Manager
3rd Floor, Chandra Kali Bhawan
M - 5, City Centre
Post and P.S. Bokaro Steel City
District - Bokaro Pin Code 827004
8. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
570, Rectifier House
Naigaum Cross Road, Wadala (W),
P.S. - Wadala, post - Mumbai
District - Mumbai, Pin Code - 400031 ... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No. 639 of 2016
1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Giridih, at
Giridih, P.O. & P.S. - Giridih, District - Giridih, Jharkhand
2. Deputy Election Officer, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District - Giridih,
Jharkhand
3. District Election Officer, P.O. P.S. & District - Giridih, Jharkhand
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Gayitri Devi, wife of Late Onkar Nath Bhagat, R/o
Durgapur, P.O. Kamargama, P.S. Sangrampur, Via Tarapur,
District - Munger (Bihar)
2. Priyanka Rani, Daughter of Late Onkar Nath Bhagat, R/o
Durgapur, P.O. Kamargama, P.S. Sangrampur, Via Tarapur,
District - Munger (Bihar)
3. Alka Rani, Daughter of Late Onkar Nath Bhagat, R/o Durgapur,
P.O. Kamargama, P.S. Sangrampur, Via Tarapur, District -
Munger (Bihar)
4. Smt. Manti Devi, Wife of Sri Ramji Bhagat, Resident of Vill.
Durgapur, P.O. Kamrgama, P.S. Sangrampur, Via Tarapur,
District Munger (Bihar) ... Respondent/Claimants
5. Election Commission of India, through District Election Office,
P.O. P.S. & District - Giridih, Jharkhand
6. Akhtar Hussain, Son of Md. Usman, Resident of village
Yogitand, P.O. - Chaitadih, P.S. Giridih (Muffasil), District -
Giridih (Jharkhand)
7. Chotu Thathera, Son of late Mahabir Thathera, Resident of
Whitty Bazar, P.S. Giridih Town, P.O. & District Giridih,
Jharkhand
8. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, 3 rd
Floor, Chandra Kali Bhawan, M-5, city Centre, P.O. & P.S. -
Bokaro Steel City, District - Bokaro
9. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 5710, rectifier House,
Naigaum Cross Road, Wadala (W), P.O. & P.S. Mumbai
... ... Respondents/Opposite parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Claimants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
: Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SCI
For the Insurance Company: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the ECI : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
---
Lastly heard on 13.08.2024
19/03.10.2024
These two appeals arising out of judgment and Award dated
08.03.2016 passed by the learned District Judge cum Motor Vehicle
Accident Claim Tribunal, Court No. 1, Giridih in Title (M.V.) Claim
Case No. 46 of 2009.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while
assailing the impugned Award has submitted that the State was
debarred from filing written statement, but the Insurance company in
its written statement had specifically taken a plea that the ex-gratia
amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was required to be adjusted against the
compensation amount. He submits that even when the vehicle was
requisitioned for the purposes of election, the liability of the Insurance
Company continued even after the judgement passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2008) 1 SCC 414 (National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Devi and others). However, during the course of
arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to
distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported in Deepa Devi (supra).
3. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 9 SCC 627
(Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shashi Sharma
and others) to submit that in the said case ex-gratia payment was
directed to be adjusted. The learned counsel has also submitted that
the claimants are entitled to just compensation and there can be no
double benefit to the claimants, once through the claim under Motor
Vehicle Act and further through the ex-gratia payment. The learned
counsel further submitted that in spite of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Devi (supra), the
liability is on the Insurance company.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance
company has opposed the prayer of the State and submitted that the
point involved in the present case is squarely covered by the case of
Deepa Devi (supra) and no distinguishing point has been raised by the
learned counsel for the State to fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company. She has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
considered every aspect of the matter and has consequently fastened
the liability upon the State. The State did not even file written
statement before the learned Tribunal denying its liability.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Election
Commission of India has submitted that, even though the
management, control, and possession of the vehicle during the election
were with the officers of the State for the purposes of conducting the
election, the owner of the vehicle is entitled to rent.
However, the records reveal that the Election Commission of India did
not file any written statement before the Court, and there was no
contest from their side.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has
vehemently opposed the prayer of the State seeking adjustment of ex-
gratia payment and has submitted that the ex-gratia payment is to be
made uniformly to the persons who are on election duty and they
suffer death while on election duty. He submits that the payment is
made irrespective of the fact whether the death occurs out of the
accident by motor vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the ex-
gratia payment cannot be adjusted against the compensation arising
out of motor vehicle accident and this aspect of the matter has been
rightly considered by the learned Tribunal and the argument of
adjustment has been rejected.
7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by
this Court in the case of Urmila Devi and Others -vs- Superintendent
of Police, Gumla and Others reported in (2020) 2 JBCJ 429 HC to
submit that in the said case, it has been held that any amount paid as
ex-gratia cannot be deducted from compensation awarded to the
claimants under Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel has
specifically referred to Para 16 of the said judgment which is quoted
as under:
"16. It is true that Urmila Devi (claimant No. 1) has been given
compassionate appointment apart from ex-gratia of Rs. 10,000,00/-,
as per the scheme of the 'Jharkhand Police' but the said amount
cannot be deducted from the compensation for which the dependents
of the deceased are entitled under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Lal Dai v. Himachal
Road Transport, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 319 relying on earlier
judgment passed in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 on this
issue."
8. The learned counsel for the appellants (claimants) has
submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing the quantum of
compensation in as much as no amount has been paid under the head
"future prospects". The deceased was 51 years of age, and as per the
judgment passed in the case of Pranay Shethi, the "future prospects"
ought to have been taken to the extent of 15%. He further submits that
under conventional head, only Rs.10,000 has been awarded, but the
same should have been Rs.15,000 for funeral, Rs.15,000 for loss of
Estate, and Rs.40,000 each for the claimants; the total claimants being
four in number.
9. With respect to the quantum of compensation, the learned
counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020 (United
India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur and others) decided on
30th June 2020 to submit that compensation on account of
"consortium" is to be given to each of the dependent separately.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while
opposing the prayer for enhancement of compensation has submitted
that the deceased being a government servant and his family being
entitled for pension, there is no question of grant of any amount on
account of "future prospects".
Findings of this Court
11. During the course of hearing, the entitlement of the claimants to
have compensation arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident is not in
dispute. However, the following points arise for consideration: -
a) Whether the liability to pay compensation has been rightly
fixed upon the state inspite of the fact that the vehicle
requisitioned on election duty was duly insured and there was
no violation of the insurance policy?
b) Whether the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lacs ought to have
been adjusted against the awarded amount of compensation?
c) Whether the compensation has been rightly determined?
12. This court finds that before the learned Tribunal, Election
Commission of India and the concerned election officers and also the
Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, State of Jharkhand were party apart
from the insurer of Tata Magic Jeep No. JH 11 E-2458. The records
reveal that though the notice was issued to the Election Commission
of India as the vehicle was requisitioned for election purpose and the
State of Jharkhand appeared through the Deputy Commissioner,
Giridih, but no written statement was filed on behalf of the Election
Commission of India and its Officers and also on behalf of the State of
Jharkhand and they being opposite party No. 1 to 4 before the
Tribunal were debarred from filing written statement vide order dated
20.06.2012.
13. The case of the claimants was that on 29.04.2009 Onkar Nath
Bhagat, deceased was travelling as a Patrolling Magistrate along with
Sub-Inspector and constable after carrying EVM Machine from
Giridih police line by a Tata Magic Jeep No. JH 11 E-2458 and while
the said jeep reached near village Chainpur, the driver who was
driving the vehicle in a high speed lost its control and rammed against
a road side tree as a result of which Onkar Nath Bhagat who was
sitting in the front seat received injury and died on the spot. The
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mudrika Ram also succumbed to
injury and died on the way to the hospital. Driver and other members
of the patrolling party also received grievous injuries on their body.
14. The owner, driver and Reliance General Insurance company
who were opposite party Nos. 5 to 8 had filed their respective written
statements.
15. The owner and the driver in their written statement admitted the
accident but denied that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and
negligently and in a very high speed. Their further defence was that
the vehicle was requisitioned and it was under the control and
possession of the Election Commission of India as such the State was
liable to pay compensation although their defence was also that the
vehicle was insured with the aforesaid insurance company and the
driver had a valid driving license at the time of accident.
16. Further the Insurance Company also challenged the claim.
Their defence was that it was a case of contributory negligence as the
deceased was himself responsible for the accident. They denied the
liability. Their further defence was that the Election Commission of
India had paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as ex-gratia on account of death of
the deceased and their further defence was that unless the owner
brings vehicular paper with respect of his vehicle, the Insurance
Company was not liable to pay compensation.
17. The learned Tribunal framed as many as eight issues as
recorded in paragraph 5 of the judgment and numerous documents
were exhibited. The learned Tribunal ultimately held that the death of
the deceased Onkar Nath Bhagat was due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal did not find any
evidence to establish contributory negligence and also held that the
deceased was a third party. The learned Tribunal further held that the
driver was having a valid driving license at the time of the alleged
accident and there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the
policy. The learned Tribunal also considered the points raised by the
parties in as much as the Insurance Company had raised a plea that
since the vehicle was for election duty, the compensation is to be paid
by the State and on the contrary, it was argued from the side of the
State that since the vehicle was insured, it was for the Insurance
Company to pay compensation. Further argument of the State was that
the claimant had already received compensation from the State under
ex-gratia payment.
18. The learned Tribunal while referring the various judgments held
that ex-gratia payment and compensation amount are different and
there could be no deduction of ex-gratia payment from the amount of
compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned
Tribunal having held as aforesaid proceeded to decide the quantum of
compensation and recorded that the deceased was 51 years of age and
his income was Rs. 27,000/- per month. The income of the deceased
was taken as Rs. 27,000/- per month for the purposes of awarding
compensation. Accordingly, the, calculation was done.
19. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier was taken as 11
and 1/4th of the income was deducted as personal expenses of the
deceased. The claimants were found entitled to only Rs. 10,000 for
loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The total amount was Rs.
26,83,000/- which was directed to be paid by the State of Jharkhand
with interest @ 9% from the date of institution of the case till actual
payment.
Point no (a)
20. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (2008) 1 SCC 414 (National Insurance Company Ltd. versus
Deepa Devi and Others) the question which arose for consideration
was as to whether in the event car is requisitioned by the State for the
purpose of deploying the same in election duty, who would be liable
to pay compensation to the victim of the accident in terms of the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 10 of the judgment that
the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of
requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner and while the
vehicles remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any
control on the vehicle and further the driver may still be the employee
of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of
the officer of the State who is put in-charge thereof. Save and except
for legal ownership, for all intent and purpose the registered owner of
the vehicle loses entire control on the vehicle. It has been further held
that in such a situation the case must proceed on the presumption that
the Parliament while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 did not
envisage such a situation and in a given situation the statutory
definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in
letters and spirit and the same should be understood from common
sense point of view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held in
paragraph 19 that the State shall be liable to pay amount of
compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the
vehicle and consequently the appellant Insurance Company was held
to be not liable for making payment. Para 10 of the judgment is quoted
as under:-
"10. Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988
Act did not take into consideration a situation of this
nature. No doubt, Respondents 3 and 4 continued to be
the registered owners of the vehicle despite the fact that
the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in
exercise of the power conferred upon him under the
Representation of the People Act. A vehicle is
requisitioned by a statutory authority, pursuant to the
provisions contained in a statute. The owner of the
vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition
of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the
vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not
exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the
employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it
as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put
in charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership,
for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the
vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to
whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of
time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a
vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly
say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. The
purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period
the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or
its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of
compensation therefor in terms of the Act but he cannot
not (sic) exercise any control thereupon. In a situation of
this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption
that Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not
envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the
statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be
given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be
understood from the common-sense point of view."
21. This court is of the considered view that the point no (a) is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the learned counsel for the State has failed to
substantiate as to how the Insurance Company will continue to be
liable even after the said judgement. As soon as the vehicle is
requisitioned by the Election Commission during election , the owner
completely loses control of the vehicle and the vehicle does not ply as
per his wishes and desire and there could also be situation where the
conditions of insurance policy are violated , for example , plying of
vehicle on a route for which required permit is not available or vehicle
driven by a driver who does not have the required driving license etc.
In the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court also
the policy was issued for 'private vehicle for use for social, domestic
and pleasures and insured's own purpose' as is apparent from
paragraph 3 of the judgement but was requisitioned and used for
election purpose during Assembly Elections during which the accident
had taken place and the Hon'ble Supreme Court fastened the liability
on the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was totally
out of the control of the owner and such a situation was not
contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The learned counsel
for the State has tried to submit that rent was to be paid to the owner
of the vehicle but such plea cannot be accepted as neither the State nor
the Election Commission of India filed any written statement before
the learned Tribunal nor there is any material to support such an
argument. This court is of the considered view that the liability cannot
be fastened upon the Insurance Company and the State has to
compensate the claimants for the accident which had taken place
while the vehicle involved in this case was requisitioned for election
purpose. The issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement
passed in the case of Deepa Devi (supra) in favour of the Insurance
Company and against the state. The point no.(a) is decided
accordingly.
Point no.(b)
2. After having held that liability to pay compensation has to be
discharged by the State while deciding point no. (a), it is required to
be decided as to whether the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakhs which
has been paid to the legal heirs and successors of the deceased is to be
adjusted against the compensation amount.
3. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
SRTC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has analyzed the legal position
regarding application of general principles for estimating damages
under the common law and held that such principles cannot be
invoked for computing compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. It
has been further held that in order to adjust the pecuniary advantage
from other source on account of death, it must correlate to the injury
or death caused on account of motor accident. Meaning thereby that
there can be no deduction from the compensation payable arising out
of motor vehicle accident of the amount receivable by the dependants
of the deceased by way of "social security compensation" and "life
insurance policy" [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean
Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281]
4. The said judgement passed in the case of Helen C. Rebello
(supra) was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in (2016) 9 SCC 627 (Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited versus Shashi Sharma and Others) and held that
the term compensation has not been defined under the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and by interpretative process it has been
understood to mean to recompense the claimants for the possible loss
suffered or likely to be suffered due to sudden and ultimately death of
their family member as a result of motor accident. It has also been
observed that two cardinal principles run through the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in the matter of determination of
compensation. Firstly, the measure of compensation must be just and
adequate; and secondly, no double benefit should be passed on to the
claimants in the matter of award of compensation. The compensation
is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit and as to
whether the compensation is just and adequate or it is double benefit
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. What
would be just compensation would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. It has been further held that the principle
discernible from the judgment passed in Helen C. Rebello v.
Maharashtra SRTC (supra) is that if the amount would be due to the
dependents of the deceased even otherwise, the same shall not be
deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act of 1988 and it must be borne in mind that the 'loss of
income' is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in
terms of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and the quantum of 'loss of
income' inter alia can be 'pay and wages' which otherwise would be
earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused
to him due to motor accident.
5. This court finds that in the case of Shashi Sharma, the payment
of ex-gratia amount was governed by the Rules which clearly
provided that the ex-gratia amount was being paid for loss of pay and
other allowances for a specified period.
6. Considering the Rules which was subject matter of
consideration in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the claimant could legitimately claim for loss of pay and wages under
Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and at the same time it was payable by
way of ex-gratia amount under Rule 5. It was held that the ex-gratia
amount was already payable for loss of pay and wages and if further
loss of pay and wages is provided by the Tribunal under Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the same would amount to double payment
towards the same head of loss of pay and wages . The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the claim towards pay and allowances which
was payable under Rule 5 of the Rules involved in the said case
cannot be paid for the second time to the claimants by the Tribunal
constituted under Motor Vehicles Act.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that it was true that
concerned Rules would come into play if the government employee
dies due to harness even due to natural death, but at the same time
Rules did not expressly enable the dependent of the deceased
government employee to claim similar amount from the insurance
company because of accidental death of the deceased government
employee. The harmonious approach for determining a just
compensation payable under the Act of 1988 therefore was to exclude
the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased
government employee under the Rules towards the head financial
assistance equivalent to pay and other allowances that was last drawn
by the deceased government employee in the normal course for the
period specified. It has been also held that so far as the claim towards
loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased
government employee had survived in the accident is concerned, that
can still be pursued by the claimants in their claim under the Motor
Vehicle Act , 1988.
8. This court finds that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Sharma(supra) cannot be
applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The State or the
Election Commission of India neither filed any written statement
before the Tribunal nor there was no material on record to relate
payment of ex-gratia amount to one or the other head/subhead under
which compensation is payable in terms of Motor Vehicle Act so as to
demonstrate that payment of ex-gratia amount could be double
benefit. It was also not clear as to whether the payment of ex-gratia
was a part of 'social security' or it was a compensation for 'loss of
income'. It is also not clear as to how the ex-gratia amount of Rs, 10
lacs has been calculated and what is the basis of such calculation and
whether the amount was relatable to the loss of 'pay and wages' or
any other head/subhead under which compensation is payable in terms
of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further not in dispute that Rs.10 lakhs is
payable to the legal heirs and successors of deceased employee merely
on account of death of employee while on election duty irrespective of
the fact as to whether the death occurs on account of motor vehicles
accident. This court is of the considered view that merely because
certain ex-gratia amount is payable, the same cannot be deducted from
the compensation amount. The issue no. (b) is accordingly decided in
favour of the claimant and against the State.
9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings with regard
to point nos. (a) and (b), Miscellaneous Appeal No. 639 of 2016 is
dismissed.
22. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is
quantified in terms of the various judgements as under: -
Calculation as per law taking into consideration income tax,
future prospects and conventional heads
Age of the deceased - 51- year at the time of death in 2009
Number of dependents - 4
Monthly income as taken by the learned Tribunal - 27,000/- per
month
Yearly income - 3,24,000 /-
Future prospect 15% of Rs. 3,24,000 /- = 48,600 /-
Rs. 3,24,000 /-+48,600 /-
= 3,72,600 /- [in terms of judgement passed in the case of Pranay
Sethi reported in (2017)16 SCC 680.
1/4th of the income is deducted towards personal living expenses
of the deceased (in view of decision in Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C)
93,150/-
3,72,600 /- - 93,150/-
= 2,79,450/-
Compensation after multiplier of 11
2,79,450/- x 11 = 30,73,950/-
Conventional head - Rs. 1,90,000/- [loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses- Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 X
4]
Total = 32,63,950/-
[in terms of judgement passed in the case of Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017)16 SCC 680.
[loss of consortium is to be paid separately to each dependent in
view of judgement passed in 2023 SCC Online SC 780 (Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Lrs.
And others) paragraph 33]
Interest payable @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim till payment as directed by the learned Tribunal.
23. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 279 of 2016 is
disposed of with enhancement of compensation as calculated above.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Saurav
