Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Gautam Singh and Others

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Challenge herein is to the award passed on 20.9.2008 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, camp at Nalagarh in MAC Petition No. 24-NL/2 of 2005 whereby a sum of Rs. 5,96,000/- has been awarded as compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as ''the claimants'') on account of death of their father Shri Gurdeep Chand. There is no dispute qua the death of said Shri Gurdeep Chand occurred in the motor vehicle accident. The claimants being his son and daughters were dependent upon him. The learned Tribunal below after holding full trial has assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and raising this figure to Rs. 6,000/-, i.e. double the income so assessed, taking into consideration the future prospectus, assessed the compensation payable to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 5,76,000/- and added thereto a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as conventional charges for loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The insurer-petitioner Company has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned award on the grounds, inter alia, that the income of the deceased could have not been doubled and the loss assessed by taking the same as Rs. 6,000/- per month under the garb of so called future increase. Such approach on the part of the Tribunal below is stated to be erroneous and hence not legally sustainable.

Having gone through the record and also the law cited at the Bar, the present is a case where learned Tribunal below has exceeded its jurisdiction in assessing the loss caused to the claimants on account of death of their father late Shri Gurdeep Chand at Rs. 6,000/- per month for the reason that for want of evidence as noticed by the learned Tribunal itself, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month being the income of an unskilled labourer. Therefore, taking into consideration that the deceased was not even working as an unskilled labourer also, the assessment so made may be the guess work of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, by way of future increase, his income should have not been doubled and assessed at Rs. 6,000/-. The law is no more res-integra as the apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, has held that in the event of death of a victim of an accident between the age of 40 to 50 years, addition in the income assessed on the basis of evidence could only be 30% thereof, no doubt in a case where the victim of an accident had permanent income from employment etc. In the case in hand, as noticed hereinabove, though the income of the deceased is not proved and it is on the basis of guess work the same has been assessed as Rs. 3,000/- and as such, the law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case, supra may be of no consequence in the case of claimants. However, the apex Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (Head Note-A) has extended the principle of 30% increase as laid down in Sarla Verma''s case, supra even in the case of those victims also who were self employed like deceased Gurdeep Chand in the case in hand. Therefore, at the most, the permissible increase would have been 30% of the income assessed. In the present case, the income of deceased has been assessed as Rs. 3,000/- per month and 30% whereof comes to Rs. 900/-. The income of deceased Gurdeep Chand would thus be Rs. 3,900/- per month and in the light of law laid down in Sarla Verma''s case, supra 1/3rd thereof is required to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses, had he not died in the accident. The net loss caused to the claimants would thus be Rs. 2,600/- per month and Rs. 31,200/- per annum. Learned Tribunal below has applied the multiplier or 12. However, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case, supra keeping in view the age of the deceased as 40 years, the multiplier of 15 would have been applied. Therefore, with the application of multiplier of 15, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 4,68,000/-. Besides the loss on account of earnings, in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma''s case, supra, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards conventional charges and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. They, however, would not be entitled to consortium as it is only the widow who is entitled thereto. The net compensation payable to the claimants would thus be Rs. 4,78,000/-.

Though the question of maintainability of the writ petition has been raised on behalf of the respondents, however, not sustainable for the reason that where award is perverse, the legality and validity thereof can be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the foregoing reasons, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,78,000/- as compensation on account of death of their father, Gurdeep Chand. The award Annexure P-3 to the writ petition stands modified to the above extent. This writ petition stands finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. March 12, 2013.