AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma and Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ.—Both the appeals are the cross-appeals filed by the appellant-insurance company as well as by the claimants. The appellant-insurance company has assailed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, in cross-appeal, the claimants have asked for the enhancement of the compensation. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 640/2009.
The brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2009, at about 5.30 p.m., Sri Surendra Pal Singh was driving the Scooter No. U.P. 43C-7853 and his wife, deceased, Smt. Bina Kapoor was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near polytechnic crossing, Police Station, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, from the back side, mixture multi-utility truck (Mixture Truck) bearing No. U.P. 32CZ-1970 came and dashed the scooter. The driver of the truck was driving it negligently and carelessly. It resulted into death of Smt. Bina Kapoor on the spot. Against the truck driver, Sri Ram Sagar, necessary F.I.R. was lodged and a Criminal Case No. 1353/09 was instituted. The claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, who vide its impugned order has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,18,180 against the appellant, i.e., M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed the present appeals.
With this background, Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the award is on higher side. There was contributory negligence on the part of the Scooter driver. So, he made a request that the award may kindly be set aside.
On the other hand, Sri Balendu Shekhar, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award is meagre one. The deceased was aged about 38 years. So, the multiplier of 16 will have to be applied, but in the instant case, the multiplier of 12 was wrongly applied.
Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned counsel for the Truck-owner submits that the liability lies with the appellant-insurance company as the truck was insured by the appellant-insurance company and on the date of the accident, the policy was alive. He also submits that the driver of the truck was holding a valid driving licence.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is not disputed. After examining the site plan and witnesses, the Tribunal observed that the truck was responsible for the accident specially when the truck came from the backside and dashed the scooter. In the absence of any adverse material, we have no option, except to endorse the findings recorded by the Tribunal to this effect. So, the truck is responsible to pay the compensation, which was insured by the appellant, i.e., M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Both the drivers were holding a valid driving licence.
The only disputed point is pertaining to the amount of the compensation.
From the records, it appears that the deceased was the house wife, but her husband, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant (Confidential) in the North Eastern Railway and drawing salary about Rs. 30,000 per month. After necessary deduction, which are not reimbursable, his salary comes to Rs. 26,688 per month. As per the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, item No. 6, the notional income or compensation will have to be taken @ 1/3rd of the income of the earning/surviving spouse. Hence, the income of the deceased will have to be taken 1/3rd of the surviving spouse. To this effect, the Tribunal has discussed a number of case laws, which need not to be repeated.
Further, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others, , which on reproduction, read as under:
........While estimating the ''services'' of the housewife, a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word ''services'' but it should be construed broadly and one has to take into account the loss of ''personal care and attention'' by the deceased to her children, as a mother and to her husband, as a wife. The award is not diminished merely because some close relation like a grandmother is prepared to render voluntary services.
The Hon''ble Apex Court further observed that it shall be estimated @ 1/3rd of the total income of the surviving spouse.
In view of above, the Tribunal has rightly taken the annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 67,390 per annum, after deducting 1/3rd.
In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 38 years. For the age group of 35-40 years, the multiplier of 16 will have to be applied as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, as already observed by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has wrongly or by mistake applied the multiplier of 12, which is not sustainable, therefore, we modify the impugned order. Thus, the compensation will come to Rs. 67,390 x 16 = Rs. 10,78,240. In addition, the claimants are also entitled of Rs. 9,500 for the consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, etc., as per the Second Schedule. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 10,78,240 + Rs. 9,500 = Rs. 10,87,740. Accordingly, we direct the appellant-insurance company to pay the amount of the compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum Union of India Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and Others, , followed.