National Insurance Co. vs Madhubala and Others

J.R. Midha, J.—The appellant has challenged the award dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs. 10,69,200/- has been awarded to respondents No. 1 to 6.

On 18th March, 2003, the deceased Vijay was sitting on the pillion of motor cycle No. DL-4S-Y-6343 near Rao Tula Ram Marg when the driver lost control of the motor cycle and hit against the pavement resulting in death of Vijay.

The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and he was working as Safai-karamchari with National Insurance Company Ltd. earning Rs. 4,393.62 per month.

The deceased by survived by his wife, two daughters, one son and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

Respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased, appeared in the witness box before the learned Tribunal as PW-1 and proved the age and income of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the death and was working with National Insurance Company Ltd. earning Rs. 4,393.62 per month. She further deposed that the deceased left behind two daughters aged five and eight years, one son aged four years and parents besides herself who were dependant on the deceased. The wife also produced the original salary slips Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6.

PW-2, Om Prakash is the eye witness who proved that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No. DL-4S-Y-6343 by respondent No. 7.

PW-3, Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company produced the service record of the deceased i.e. salary slips - Ex.PW-3/1 and Ex.PW-3/2, appointment letter -Ex.PW-3/3, confirmation letter - Ex.PW-3/4, appointment letter Ex.PW-3/5 and joining report - Ex.PW-3/6.

The learned Tribunal took the salary of the deceased for computation of compensation at Rs. 4,243/- after deducting the TPT and washing allowance of Rs. 150/- from the last drawn salary of Rs. 4393.62 as per Ex.PW-1/6. The learned Tribunal took the future prospects into consideration by taking the average of the salary and double the salary i.e. Rs. 4243+8486=12729/2=6364/- per month. Since the deceased left behind six legal heirs, the learned Tribunal deducted 1/5 amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of dependency was taken at Rs. 5094/- per month. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 as per the Second Schedule to compute the total loss of dependency at Rs. 10,39,176/-. Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the total compensation awarded was Rs. 10,69,176/-.

The appellant has urged the following grounds to challenge the impugned award:

(i) The income of the deceased be taken to be Rs. 4,393.62 per month and the future prospects should not be taken into consideration.

(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be deducted to the extent of 1/3 instead of 1/5.

(iii) The learned Tribunal could not have awarded more than the amount claimed (Respondents No. 1 to 6 had claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,69,200/-.

(iv) The driving licence of the driver was fake and forged and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.

With respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken the future prospects into consideration following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit''s v. Balwant Yadav 1996 SCC 1274. The deceased was working in a public corporation and there are annual increments in the salary besides revision of DA and promotion. I agree with the reasons given by the Tribunal in paras 20 to 23 for taking the future prospects into consideration.

The deceased left behind six legal representatives i.e. wife aged about 28 years, two minor daughters aged 8 and 6 years and one minor son aged 5 years and parents aged 55 and 60 years. The deduction of 1/3 income as personal expenses is not a thumb rule. Where the number of dependents is more, the lesser deduction has been permitted by the Courts and where income is meager, the Courts have even held that no deduction should be made towards personal expenses. The learned Tribunal has referred to the judgments in the cases of Kela Devi v. Ram Chand 1986 ACJ 1818; Khazano Devi Vs. Moti Lal and Others, ; Phoola Rani v. Rattan Lal 85 ACJ 530; Mishri Devi and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, ; Ved Prakash v. Gurmeet Singh 1992 ACJ 147; and New India Assurance company Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors. Transport and Accident Cases 2007 (3) 414 in support of 1/5th deduction. I agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal.

With respect to the third ground of challenge it has been held in the case of Virender Singh v. Anand Prakash 2007 RLR 532 that the claimants are entitled to just compensation which can be more than the amount claimed.

With respect to the fake and forged driving licence, the learned Tribunal has given the recovery rights to the appellant against respondent No. 8 in accordance with law.

There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No costs.