Smt. Gayatri & Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

By means of the present Appeal from Order, the appellants/claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation granted by judgment and order dated 09.10.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed, and compensation was granted to the tune of Rs. 7,51,000/- along with interest.

Brief facts for the adjudication of the present appeal are as follows:

Claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimants/appellants with the averments that on 15.05.2015, the deceased Manoj Kumar met with an accident when the rider of motorcycle bearing number UK-18-B-6473, who was riding the said motorcycle rashly and negligently, hit the deceased from behind, from which he sustained serious injuries and he was taken to District Hospital, Bazpur, where the doctors declared him dead.

In the claim petition, it was averred that the deceased was a 29 years old healthy person and he used to sell vegetables from which he used to earn Rs. 7,500/-per month. Thus, on the said premise, compensation was prayed for before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The defendant insurance company contested the claim petition by filing its WS refuting the claim petition averments and denied its liability for making payment of any compensation.

The defendant nos. 2 and 3 also contested the claim petition by filing their WS and denied the claim petition averments.

By virtue of the judgment and order dated 09.10.2017, the claim petition came to be decided by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein on issue no.1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rider of motorcycle UK-18-B-6473 riding the said motorcycle rashly and negligently and hitting the deceased from behind, from which he sustained serious injuries and died.

Issue no.2 was decided to the effect that on the date of the accident, all its documents were valid and the driver was having an effective and valid driving licence.

On issue no.3 pertaining to the compensation, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim of the claimants that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 7,500/- is unacceptable since no document was placed on record and it deemed the deceased to be an unskilled labour and as per the rates fixed for unskilled labour, wages @ Rs. 150/- per day was deemed to be the income of the deceased and monthly income was assessed at Rs.4,500/- and annual income was assessed at Rs. 54,000/- and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,51,000/- along with interest.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancing the compensation as granted by the learned Tribunal on the limited ground that the learned Tribunal failed to award any amount of compensation towards future prospects of the income of the deceased.

The learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and has drawn the attention of the court to para 59.4 thereof, which is being extracted hereinafter for ready reference:

Relying upon the conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para number 59.4 of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra), the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants would contend that since the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any amount towards future prospects of the income of the deceased, hence the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced to the tune by an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased, since the deceased was a self-employed person and he was below the age of 40 years.

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company, Mr. Pulak Agarwal, advocate, would contend that no evidence has been led by the claimants/ appellants seeking the enhancement/addition of 40% as claimed by the claimants/appellants and as such, there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Manav Sharma would submit that the enhancement is an issue between the claimants and the insurance company and the documents of the vehicle/motorcycle bearing No.U.K. 18B-6473 were valid and the driver was having a valid driving licence, and the liability, if any, is of the insurance company.

From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the only point for determination which arises in this appeal is whether the claimants/appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation in terms of para 59.4 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra)?

On one hand, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal erred by not granting any amount towards future prospects of the income of the deceased and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra), there needs to be an addition of 40% of the established income and in the present case, the deceased was self-employed and below 40 years of age, hence the case of the claimants/appellants is covered by para 59.4 of the aforesaid judgment.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that the claimants/ appellants have failed to make out a case for any enhancement.

After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is amply clear from bare perusal of the impugned judgment that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any amount of compensation towards future prospects of the income of the deceased. The present case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

Hence, in view of the said dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present appeal deserves to be allowed by enhancing the compensation by granting an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased as per the computation below.

On the basis of the aforesaid determination, the compensation is being computed and quantified as follows :

The Appeal from Order is decided in the aforesaid terms. The insurance company/respondent no.1 is directed to remit the amount of the enhanced/ balance compensation to the Tribunal concerned within a period of 45 days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order after deducting the amount which has already been paid to the claimants.

The Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned forthwith. The original records be also transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.