New India Assurance Company Limited vs Kulwant Kaur and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The above titled two appeals arise out of the award dated 19.5.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, "the Tribunal"). On the death of Bant Singh in a roadside accident that took place on 11.3.2008, his wife and children have brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 11,49,000/- as compensation. New India Assurance Company Limited, who has brought FAO No. 5718 of 2011, challenges the award on the quantum of compensation whereas, FAO No. 5999 of 2011 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the same. To be precise, while the insurer claims that more compensation has been wrongly awarded, the claimants claim that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is less than what was due to them.

Bant Singh had been 61-62 years of age. He was doing the business of catering in Virginia State of U.S.A. and was earning $5000 per month apart from getting $400 in the name of social security. A sum of Rs. 50 lakhs is, thus, claimed as compensation.

The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation and they have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

Learned Tribunal did not believe the assertions that the deceased was doing catering business and was earning something. However, he has been taken as doing odd jobs, which are frequently available in U.S.A. and by doing so, he was taken to have been earning a sum of $500 per month besides getting $471 per month from social security. Though, the deceased was found to be having an income of $971 per month, his monthly contribution to the family was taken as $300 per month. This contribution was taken as $3600 per annum and taking the value of a dollar at Rs. 45/-, a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- is taken as the contribution of the deceased to his wife. Taking the deceased to be of the age of 61-65 years, multiplier of 7 is adopted and multiplying the annual contribution of Rs. 1,62,000/- with 7, a sum of Rs. 11,34,000/- is found as the amount lost by claimant No. 1, Kulwant Kaur, the wife of the deceased in the death of Bant Singh. Adding a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, that has been allowed under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 11,49,000/- is assessed as compensation.

Learned counsel for the insurer has contended that there was no case of the claimants that the deceased was doing odd jobs. According to him, learned Tribunal has gone out of the way to assess a good income of the deceased. According to him, besides $471 per month received from social security, the deceased had no other income. He has, thus, submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation on a higher side.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the deceased was doing catering work in Virginia State of USA and was earning $5000 per month besides receiving $471 per month from social security. No evidence worth reliance had come on record to prove the income of the deceased in a sum of $5000 per month from catering business. There was no case of the claimants that the deceased was doing odd jobs and was earning something. The only income of the deceased was the amount received from social security. However, we the Indians are in the habit of saving money. We are not spendthrift. The deceased had a car in India and it shows that he was a person who used to save money. Out of $471 per month, the deceased could yet save $300 and could give the same to his wife and, therefore, I find no reason for disagreeing with the learned Tribunal in his approach that the deceased was contributing $300 per month to his wife. As there is no exception taken to the calculation made thereafter by learned Tribunal, I find no reason to differ from learned Tribunal in the ultimate compensation assessed on the death of Bant Singh.

In these circumstances, finding no merit in both the appeals, I dismiss the same.