AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common award.
FAO No. 663 of 1988 has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, `the Board'') challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short, `the Tribunal'') granting compensation to the claimants, on quantum.
FAO No. 729 of 1988 has been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation.
FAO No. 862 of 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the learned Tribunal on the ground that liability of the Insurance Company in the present case was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-only, whereas it has been directed to satisfy the award in its entirety.
As all the appeals arise out of the same accident, these are being taken up together.
Briefly, the facts are that deceased-Sahib Singh, employed as Adda Incharge of Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot No. II, was posted at Amritsar. He used to travel daily from Verka to the General Bus stand on his moped to perform his duties. On 3.3. 1986, on his way back to home, truck No. PUJ 1889, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came from Batala side. The driver of the truck came on the wrong side and struck against the moped of the deceased. As a result of the accident, Sahib Singh died at the spot. In the claim petition filed by the claimants, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
In FAO No. 663 of 1988, learned Counsel for the Board submitted that the amount of compensation, as has been assessed by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. The age of the deceased was 37 years. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 20, which is on higher side. The multiplier should not have been more than 14. She further submitted that even the rate of interest awarded is also on higher side and same is the position with regard to addition on account of future prospects.
In FAO No. 729 of 1988, filed by the claimants, the contention is that the deceased in the present case was employed as Adda Incharge with Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar. The carry home salary of the deceased was Rs. 982.30. He was a permanent government employee. Though there were five dependents on the deceased, being his mother, widow and three children, still the learned Tribunal applied a cut of 1/3rd, which should not have been more than 1/4th. Nothing has been awarded on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .
In FAO No. 862 of 1988, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that liability of the insurance company in the present case on account of third party claim was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-only in terms of Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, `the Act''), as it was only an act policy and no extra premium was paid for coverage of additional liability.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
Primarily, there are two issues, which require consideration by this Court, namely, as to who is liable to pay the compensation and to what extent? Secondly, the quantum of compensation?.
The first issue has been raised by the Insurance Company as well as the Board in the cross appeals filed by them. The contention of the Insurance Company is that their liability is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-, whereas the contention of the Board is that the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited.
As far as second issue is concerned, the claimants as well as the Board are in cross appeals. The relief prayed for by the claimants is that the amount of compensation awarded to them deserves further increase, whereas the stand of the Board is that the compensation already awarded is on the higher side and deserves to be reduced.
As far as first issue is concerned, in my opinion, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has been able to make out a case, as pleaded by him, to the extent that liability of the Insurance Company in the present case is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. A perusal of the insurance policy on record (Ex. R1) shows that liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Board has not been able to refer to any material on record to show that any extra premium was paid for coverage of more liability than what the Act provided.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it can safely be held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-and the balance, if any, is to be paid by the Board, the owner of the vehicle.
As far as second issue regarding quantum of compensation is concerned, in my opinion, the amount of compensation, as determined by the learned Tribunal, does not call for any interference. Though the learned Tribunal had applied a cut of merely 1/3rd in spite of there being five dependents, but on the other hand, it applied a multiplier of 20, even though the age of the deceased was 37 years. In Sarla Verma''s case (supra), Hon''ble the Supreme Court opined that in case the dependents are 3 to 5, a cut of 1/4th is required to be applied. However, it provides for a multiplier of 15 in the age group of 36 to 40. It also provides for addition of 50% of the salary for future prospects, in case the deceased was less than 40 years of age and is a permanent government servant. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was working as Adda Incharge with Punjab Roadways. If 50% is added to the income of the deceased and after reducing 1/4th therefrom on account of personal expenses and multiplying the same with 15, the amount of compensation comes out to Rs. 1,98,000/-, to which another sum of Rs. 5,000/-can be added on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The amount of compensation so assessed even by applying the principles as laid down in Sarla Verma''s case (supra) comes out to Rs. 2,03,000/-. The learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,00,000/-. As the amount of compensation cannot be by mathematical exactitude, a little variation is always possible.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason either to reduce or increase the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the Board as well as the claimants, bearing FAO Nos. 663 and 729 of 1988 are dismissed, whereas FAO No. 862 of 1988 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed to the extent mentioned above.