National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others vs S. Trilochan Singh and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Appellant/insurer has questioned the judgment and award dated 14.03.2005, passed in Claim Petition No.

345(Claims) titled S. Trilochan Singh and Ors. v. Kamal jeet Singh and Ors. on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

Award holders-victims of the vehicular accident have also questioned the adequacy of compensation, by the medium of Cross Appeal No.

17/2005.

Brief Facts of the Case:

S. Mangat Singh, became the victim of vehicular accident caused by the driver namely, Dr. Kamaljeet Singh, while driving vehicle (Maruati Car)

bearing registration No. JKO1/9891 hit Dev Raj Rehriwala and lost control over the offending vehicle thereby caused the accident. S. Manghat

Singh and his daughter in law, Dr. Tejinder Kour, sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries.

The Tribunal after hearing the parties awarded Rs. 1.95 lakhs as compensation in favour of the victims of the vehicular accident-claimants.

The main ground projected by the appellant/insurer is that claimants/respondents are not entitled to compensation under the heads; 'loss of love

and affection' and 'shock and agony'. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the award on any other count.

Admittedly, deceased was 69 years of age at the time of accident and has died instantly. So he has not suffered any pain and shock. The

claimants are major and grown-up sons of the deceased and are having a high status, so question of granting compensation on account of 'loss of

love and affection' and 'shock and agony' does not arise at all.

Keeping in view the aim and object of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation under the head Toss of love and

affection can be awarded in favour of the wife and minor children who are putting up with the deceased, but in the instant case, the claimants are

major enough, grown-up, armed with a good status and are living separately in different countries. It can also be said that they have not suffered on

account of 'pain and shock' and 'love and affection'. My this view is fortified by the judgments delivered in cases; titled Agya Kaur and Others Vs.

General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Others, and N. Sivammal and Ors. v. Managing Director reported as 1985

ACJ 75.

Thus, in the given circumstances, I am of the view that Tribunal has fallen in error while granting compensation under the said heads.

The Tribunal has held that deceased was owing immovable property (Orchard) and was managing the same and has rightly held that said

property has devolved upon his legal heirs so question of granting compensation on that count does not arise. But as per the unrebutted evidence,

the deceased was managing the same and now the claimants/legal representatives have to manage the same or have to engage a person for its

management, thus Tribunal has rightly held that petitioners have to incur Rs. 4000/- for engaging labourer/Chowkidar. But Tribunal has fallen in

error while holding that property is to be managed only for seven months. It is suggestive of the fact that Tribunal is not knowing about agricultural

vocations and the fact of the matter is that Orchards are to be managed round the year except for two months i.e. January and February. Thus, the

claimants are entitled to Rs. 4000/- per month for ten months in a year.

In the given circumstances, the Multiplier 5 (five) came to be rightly applied in the case. Viewed thus, the petitioners are entitled to the

compensation to the tune of Rs. 4000 x 10 x 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/-, including interim awarded amount with 6% interest from the date of institution of

the claim petition till its final realization.

Accordingly, impugned award is modified. Appeal and the cross appeal are disposed of along with all connected CMPs.