AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dev Darshan Sud, J.
FAO No. 33 of 2008
The appellant herein challenges the quantum of compensation awarded. The facts are not in dispute nor are contested by the parties to this appeal. It is undisputed before me that the deceased was 19 years old at the time of accident as proved by Ext.PW1/A, which is the school leaving certificate. Learned counsel submits that the multiplier of 10 which has been adopted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and that the income assessed at Rs. 2500/- per month is also wrong by not considering the fact that there is unrebutted evidence on record that the deceased was helping his parents in doing the agriculture work also. According to the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the multiplier to be adopted in this case taking into consideration the age of the parents is 13 not 10. On the aspect of loss of income of the deceased and his contribution to the family, I find that the learned Tribunal is also wrong in estimating the income of the deceased at Rs. 2500/ per month and his contribution to the family at Rs. 1500/- per month. In Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, the notional contribution of a housewife was assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month. This decision has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court. In Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others, Hon''ble Justice A.K. Ganguly, dealing with this aspect of the case has assessed such income at Rs. 5000/- per month. Applying this principle, the loss assessed would be Rs. 5000/- per montn as a contribution to the family. Since the deceased was bachelor, this amount has to be reduced upto 50%, as held in Sarla Verma''s case:
Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
(at p.136)
In other words, the detum figure will be Rs. 2500/- per month i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per year. By adopting the multiplier of 13, the amount works out at Rs. 3,90,000/-. However, a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- is awarded to the claimants. This amount shall carry interest at the rate as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This appeal stands disposed of.
FAO No. 37 of 2008
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a case MACT No. 125-S/2 of 2006/05, titled Raj Kumar and another vs. Akshay Chauhan and others. The only point raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein is that liability has been wrongly fastened on the appellant herein. According to learned counsel, the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. While discussing the liability of the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal holds that the insurance policy, which has been proved on record before the learned Tribunal, does not show the number of the accidented vehicle. The appellant had moved an application in this Court, being CMP 452 of 2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for placing on record the original cover note issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited insuring vehicle No. HP-63-1277 owned by the appellant Shri Akshay Chauhan which is admittedly involved in the accident. The policy commenced from 25.6.2004 and was valid upto 24.6.2005. The accident took place on 3.4.2005 i.e. within the period of the insurance cover. This application was allowed by this Court on 7.4.2010. The Insurance company did not lead any evidence, but according to the instructions received by the learned counsel Dr. Lalit Sharma, appearing for the Insurance Company, the authenticity of this policy is not denied. In other words, the authenticity has been confirmed by the Insurance Company through its duly authorized officer. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The liability apportioned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall be that of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. No other point is urged before me. Appeal stands disposed of.