AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.02.2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Baramulla, whereunder, claimants have been held entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,77,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of closure of
evidence of the claimants i.e. 20th October, 2011 till final realization. The appellant-insurance company has been directed to deposit the amount
within one month otherwise interest shall be chargeable @ 9% per annum. Factual matrix which has given rise to the filing of instant appeal is
precisely noticed:
One Aijaz Ahmad Ganai, son of respondents No. 1 and 2 and brother of respondent No. 3, was hit by a vehicle (tipper) bearing registration No.
JK13-3873 at Dangerpora Sopore, as a result whereof he had suffered multiple injuries to which he finally succumbed in SKIMS, Soura. At the
time of accident, the deceased was 24 years old unmarried but was running a Kiryana provisional store. The matter had been taken up for
settlement in Lok Adalat on 9th October, 2012 by District Legal Services Authority which could not fructify, as a result whereof claim petition had
been taken up in routine.
After recording statement of claimant No. 1 and his two witnesses, the evidence had been closed on 20th October, 2012. The appellant (insurance
company) had not chosen to lead any evidence. Learned Tribunal observed that the insurance company has not chosen to contest the petition on
fact or on account of any statutory defence available, therefore, only amount of compensation payable is to be worked out.
The claimants had claimed that the deceased was running a provision store, as such, was earning Rs. 15000, monthly. With such earnings he would
promote business in future. He was the only bread earner of the family, as such, was taking care of the whole family including his parents and
unmarried sister. In the evidence it had appeared, as observed by the learned Tribunal, that the family (claimants) are now surviving on alms. Such
position has been in categoric terms stated by the witnesses as produced by the claimants before the Tribunal. It had also emerged that the parents
of the deceased were not keeping good health. Even the mother of the deceased developed heart ailment. Finally, learned Tribunal has taken the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- out of which, after reducing 1/3rd, Rs. 3000/- was taken as dependency value. Multiplier of 17 has
been applied. The amount of compensation on dependence basis has been worked out as:
3000 x 12 x 17 = 6,12,000.00
Rs. 20,000/- have been awarded as cost of medicine and ambulance charges, Rs. 50,000/- as loss to estate and Rs. 5000/- as funeral expenses.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the expenditure of Rs. 20,000 for purchase of medicine has not been
proved which is correct because evidence led by the claimants has not established that Rs. 20,000/- were spent on medicine and other medical
analyses. Further submits that Rs. 50,000/- awarded on account of loss to estate is impermissible which is also correct because grant of
compensation as worked out on the basis of monthly earnings takes care of such situation, therefore, award of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss to
estate is unwarranted.
Similarly on account of loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000 should not have been granted whereas for funeral expenses Rs. 20,00 are
permissible to be granted in accordance with the terms of Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act.
It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the age of the parents, appropriate multiplier to be applied was
11 not 17.
Confronted with the arguments and contentions of the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant stated that he shall have no
objection in case multiplier 11 is applied, further shall have no objection if the amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of expenditure on medicine and
other medical analyses, Rs. 50,000/- as loss to estate and Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of love and affection are omitted. Similarly, if instead of
Rs. 5000/- only Rs. 2000/- are awarded on account of funeral expenses, he shall have no objection.
Since the loss of life in a vehicular accident is not denied, liability of the insurance company is not denied except to the extent indicated above,
therefore, total amount of compensation on the principle of just compensation is worked out as under:
a) 3000 x 12 x 11 = 3,96,000.
b) Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000.
Total = Rs. 3,98,000.
So far as interest awardable is concerned, it is to be made clear that when the matter had been taken up for settlement in Lok Adalat on
09.10.2012, the appellant had offered Rs. 2.10/- lacs whereas the claimants had demanded Rs. 5.00/- lacs. On such basis claimants were asked
to conclude evidence within three months. It was further recorded that the interest will be calculated from the date of closure of the evidence of the
claimants. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The evidence was closed on 20th October, 2012. In view of said settlement, interest @ 6%
is allowed from the date of closure of evidence i.e. 12th October, 2012.
The total amount of compensation is worked as Rs. 3,98,000/- plus interest which may have accrued thereon shall be released in favour of the
claimants after proper verification, strictly in terms of the award. Surplus amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the appellant insurance
company along with interest which may have accrued thereon.
For the stated reasons and the position as agreed to by the counsel for the parties, appeal succeeds to the extent as indicated above. Impugned
award shall stand, accordingly, modified. Copy of the order be sent to the Tribunal for information.