Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Arjun and Others

Dalip Singh, J.—The matter comes up for orders on the stay application, however, at the joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard for final hearing as the arguments of the stay application and the main appeal are same.

Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ram Singh met with an accident on 27.5.2000 which involved two motor vehicles, i.e., trucks; one bearing registration No. RJ 01-G 4526 and another one bearing registration No. PB 7-B 8695. The first truck was insured with the appellant, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the later truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, i.e., respondent No. 6. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 5 has held that the age of deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident a multiplier of 12 was applied in consonance with the judgment of their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gyanchand Jain v. Parmanand 2003 ACJ 2152. Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the parents of the deceased was 48 and 55 years respectively, the Tribunal under the head of loss of income awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-two thousand only) (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 12).

The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the income of Rs. 3,000 per month has been arbitrarily arrived at by the Tribunal as there was no material on record to support the same other than the oral testimony. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that as per the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the absence of any cogent evidence the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum ought to have been taken into consideration.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and contended that even assuming that the oral evidence led by claimants is not taken into consideration and in that view of the matter, assuming the notional income to be Rs. 15,000 as has been provided under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it cannot be lost sight of that the future prospects of earnings would certainly have increased the income of the deceased and have relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, wherein the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 1,032 per month was on the basis of future prospects enhanced to Rs. 2,000 per month which is approximately double taking into consideration the future prospects and the compensation so awarded on the basis of assuming the increased income. In the first instance, the learned Tribunal has come to the finding with regard to income of the deceased on the basis of the evidence led by the claimants and has also come to the finding that the deceased at the time of death was earning Rs. 3,000 per month and on basis of the notional increase in the income due to future prospects, the income was assessed as Rs. 4,500 per month. The 1/3rd amount out of the aforesaid income was deducted towards personal expenses and Rs. 3,000 was assessed as the loss of income to claimants. Thus, on the basis of the evidence, learned Tribunal has come to the cogent finding regarding the income of deceased. Arjun Singh, AW 1, father of the deceased has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 250 per day while working on the truck. Similarly, Shambhu Dayal, AW 2, has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month and was engaged in the business of trading masonry stone and sand (the material used in construction work). The aforesaid evidence was led on behalf of the claimants and remained unrebutted. As the Tribunal has come to the finding, which cannot be said to be absolutely arbitrary and which has been scaled down the dependency to be Rs. 3,000 per month. In this view of the matter, the award passed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper for the death of the deceased son of claimant Ram Singh, who died at a young age of 22 years in the accident.

Since, in this case, the finding has been arrived at on the basis of the evidence that too was led by the claimants and it has been proved that he was an earning person, engaged in the business of construction material. The provisions contained in the structured formula mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant that the notional income alone of Rs. 15,000 per annum should have been considered has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as the deceased was an earning member and para 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was relied upon is in respect of ''non-earning persons'' which is not applicable in this case. It has been stated at the Bar that in accordance with the award passed by the Tribunal according to which 50 per cent of the amount was directed to be paid by the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the balance There shall be no order as to costs. 50 per cent amount by National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 6. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, respondent No.6, has not preferred any appeal and on the contrary, has paid the aforesaid 50 per cent of the amount to the claimants. In this view of the matter, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.

In view of the fact that the appeal itself, has been dismissed, the stay order passed by this Court on 27.5.2003 stands vacated and the Stay Application No. 1890 of 2003 filed with the appeal also stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.