AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of quantum and liability. The tribunal by its judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 in MVC No. 1292/2010 awarded a sum of Rs. 9,48,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that there is an error committed by the tribunal in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and that the income of the deceased is not proved by authenticated documents.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was working as a cleaner in VRL Logistics Ltd. and not as an employee in the said Company. If the deceased was an employee in VRL Lorry, the Company would have maintained some documents to show that the deceased was under the employment of VRL Company. The co-worker of the deceased/PW.2 was examined and he has deposed that the VRL Company is a reputed company and the legal documents are maintained for all the employees except cleaners. Under the circumstance, the occupation of the deceased is not proved and hence, awarding compensation under the head future prospects is an error and therefore, the judgment and award of the tribunal may be accordingly modified.
In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kuman and others v. Madan Mohan and another reported in , 2013 (9) SCC 65, which has held that where the case of this nature is referred to the larger Bench. Hence, he requests that this appeal also to be kept pending until it is disposed of.
The brief facts of the case are:
"In the road traffic accident which occurred on 30.06.2010, the son of the claimants aged 29 years has died. It is the case of the claimants that he was working as a cleaner in VRL Logistics Limited and the income of the deceased was assessed by the tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. The deceased had come from Delhi to VRL Office, Shimoga and when the lorry was taking reverse to unload the goods, the deceased was giving signals, at that time, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, dashed the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and rear wheels of the lorry ran over his head and body. The deceased suffered crush injury to the head and he succumbed on the spot. PW.2 who was the co-worker/Manager of the deceased has deposed that the deceased was working as a cleaner and there was nothing to prevent him from producing any document like identity card, attendance register, salary register or any of such kind. But he has not produced any proof that the deceased was working under him as a cleaner."
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that when the occupation is in dispute and the income is not proved, the question of adding 30% to the income of the deceased under the head future prospects does not arise. As per the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma''s case reported in , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the income of the deceased would be added only when the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary with a provision for annual increment etc. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal by modifying the judgment and award of the tribunal.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the grounds urged for disallowing the compensation under the head loss of future prospects.
There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the dissatisfaction of the Insurance Company for addition of 30% of income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects cannot be accepted and rejected for the following reasons:
PW.2 who claimed to be the employer of the deceased, in his chief examination at para No. 3 has stated that the deceased had died while discharging duty as a cleaner. When he was helping the lorry driver to take reverse during which course, the lorry ran over the deceased and he died while he was on duty. So the case of the claimant that deceased was working as a cleaner has been proved. The dispute raised by the appellant is in respect of the cross-examination in which PW.2 deposed that the salary certificate and other documents pertaining to the income of the deceased was not available as the Company had not maintained any documents to prove the income of the deceased. It is true that the claimants have proved the occupation of the deceased but ought to have produced some documents. In the instant case, no such documents are produced by the claimants. Disbelieving the case of the claimants, the appellant has failed to make necessary arrangements to make available records from the employer of the deceased to prove the income of the deceased by producing necessary documents like salary certificate, identity card P.F. etc. When such effort not being made by the appellant before the tribunal but they have taken such ground before this Court.
Assuming that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased that itself is not a ground for admission of the contention of the appellant. What is to be looked into while entertaining the appeal is whether the over all compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation or not? The calculation for the compensation shall not be done like workmen compensation but has to be calculated on the basis of the salary certificate, P.F. and other statutory benefits. What is to be seen is over all compensation awarded by the tribunal whether it is compensated for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. Rs. 6,000/- p.m. assessed by the tribunal and adding 30% for the purpose of compensation under the future prospects is not an error. But a person like a deceased one who is aged 29 years must have been earning Rs. 300/- per day or Rs. 9,000/- p.m. Examining in any angle also, what has been awarded it is a sound and reasonable and seems to be just and proper compensation.
It is made clear that nothing in the appeal whether the quantum is the question or the liability, if the total compensation is looked into, it is not proper for this Court to examine each and every ground or documents for calculating compensation as it will be done while calculating the statutory benefits for awarding compensation under workmen''s compensation act. Under this circumstance, I hold that what has been awarded at Rs. 9,48,000/- is just compensation and interference is uncalled for, no matter whether the future prospects is added or not.
Under this circumstance, even if the case of the appellant that without adding 30% to the income of the deceased is accepted, it results in reduction of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- that is not the ground to interfere. Accordingly, this contention is rejected.
However, coming to the interest part of the judgment and award, the tribunal has awarded 9% p.a. and though there is no guidelines for the Tribunal what should have been the interest, generally, this Court has awarded 6% interest p.a. Accordingly, in the instant case also, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% p.a. as against 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The compensation of Rs. 9,48,000/- awarded by the tribunal by its judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 in MVC No. 1292/2010 is confirmed.
The rate of interest on the total compensation is reduced to 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
The appellant Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award amount within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.
The amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.