Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Savita

Rakesh Garg, J.—The Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal challenging the award of compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3 on account of death of one Deepak son of respondents No. 1 and 2 and brother of respondent No. 3.

After taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 7500/- per month and applying a cut of 50% for the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 keeping in view the age of the deceased who was 25 years of age at the time of his death and computed a compensation at Rs. 6,75,000/- further adding Rs. 20,000/- on account of transportation and last rites and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as consortium.

The Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal.

It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the multiplier of 15 as applied in the instant case is on the higher side and the Tribunal has erred while applying such a multiplier, keeping in view the age of the deceased and in fact, the multiplier should have been applied keeping in view the age of the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another,

However, it may be noticed that selection of multiplier is not solely dependent upon the age of the deceased or the claimants and in fact is further dependent upon many other factors. It may further be noticed that there is a divergent opinion on the point in issue. Not only this, in the instant case, one of the claimants is admittedly of young age and in view thereof, the argument raised is not accepted.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is case of contributory negligence as it is claimants'' own case that the offending vehicle which was going ahead of the motorcycle of the deceased had applied its brakes and the deceased had rammed his motorcycle in the vehicle from behind and therefore, the deceased was also at fault. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to order deduction from the amount of compensation on the ground of contributory negligence of the deceased. However, it may be noticed that no such plea has been taken by the appellant in its written statement raising the plea of contributory negligence.

In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument as raised.

No other argument raised.

Dismissed.

As per office report, respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been served. However, notice issue to respondent No. 4 has not been received back served or otherwise.

Counsel for the appellant states that respondent No. 4 is the driver of the offending vehicle and since owner of the vehicle has been served, service upon him be dispensed with.

Ordered accordingly.

Service is complete.

CM No. 18952-CII of 2013

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 54 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No. 18953-CII of 2013

Since the appeal has been decided on merits, the question of condoning the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal has become redundant.