National Insurance Company Limited vs Shantabai

N. Ananda, J.—MFA No. 31134/2013 is filed by the insurance company for reduction of compensation inter alia contending that tribunal should not have adopted multiplier in terms of the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, case despite noticing the fact that the deceased (working as Junior Assistant in NEKRTC) was aged about 57 years at the time of accident and was due to retire on attaining age of 60 years. In the circumstances, the tribunal was not justified in applying ''9'' multiplier as the deceased had been left with 3 years of service. The tribunal having held that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 31,982/- per month has not deducted professional tax and income tax. MFA No. 31058/2013 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation inter alia contending that compensation awarded by the tribunal under the heads ''love and affection'', ''funeral expenses'' and ''loss of expectation in life'' is on the lower side.

We have heard the learned counsel for parties.

In a decision reported in Puttamma and Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, , the Supreme Court has held:

"34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari ( AIR 2013 SC (Civ) 1731) (supra)."

The insurance company should have brought on record the special reasons and evidence to apply split multiplier method instead of multiplier as per the decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . The tribunal should have also recorded findings having regard to the number of years of service left for the deceased and multiplier appropriate to his age.

The tribunal while deciding the income of deceased should have considered tax payable by the deceased having regard to salary of deceased. The tribunal should have considered the amount payable towards professional tax.

In our considered opinion, the tribunal has not considered the aforestated questions which have vital bearing on compensation determined by the tribunal. Therefore, the matter needs reconsideration.

The other findings recorded by the tribunal on issues of negligence and liability of the insurance company have attained finality Therefore, the tribunal need not reconsider the same.

We are conscious of the fact that claimants cannot be made to wait indefinitely to receive the compensation more particularly, when they are in distress. Therefore, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeals are accepted. The impugned award is set aside. The matters are remanded to the tribunal for reconsideration of compensation in the light of the aforestated observations and in accordance with law.

The claimants and the insurance company are at liberty to adduce further evidence. The tribunal need not reconsider the findings recorded on issues of negligence and liability of insurance company. The amount deposited by the insurance company i.e., a sum of Rs. 14,81,809/- and statutory deposit shall be transferred to the tribunal. The tribunal shall apportion compensation amongst claimants. In the matter of payment and investment, the Tribunal shall follow the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, .