AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K.Gauba, J
Soloman Prasad, aged 60 years, a widower, was crossing the road on 05.11.2000 when he was hit by maruti car bearing registration no. DL 6C
6932, which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question. His two sons and daughter, they
being first to third respondents (collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (petition no. 289/2010) on 14.05.2001 which was decided
after inquiry by the tribunal, by judgment dated 05.10.2011, holding the car driver responsible. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs. 3,52,600/-(inclusive of interim compensation), major component thereof being Rs. 3,17,600/- towards loss of dependency/loss of estate, this having
been calculated on the multiplier of 9, after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4410/- per
month, on the basis of evidence (of PW-1) showing the deceased was retired employee earning pension of Rs. 2,410/- and also doing private work to
earn to Rs. 2,000/- per month.
The insurer questions the impugned judgment on the ground the negligence was not properly proved. On perusal, it is found that the view taken by
the tribunal on this score does not call for any interference. The tribunal has gone by the principle of res ipsa loquitur, there being no effort on the part
of the contesting respondents to bring in the version of the car driver who was a party to the proceedings.
The insurer’s argument is that multiplier of 9 should not have been adopted. Since the age of the deceased is shown to be 60 years, adoption of
such multiplier by the tribunal was correct. No effort was made by the contesting parties to show the age of deceased to be nearing 61.
The appeal is, thus, dismissed.
In terms of order dated 11.01.2012, the entire awarded amount was directed to be deposited by the insurer with the Registrar General. The amount
in deposit shall now be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment.
The statutory amount shall be refunded.