AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Kandpal, J.—Both these appeals u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle have been preferred by the appellants/claimants as well as insurer/The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C. No. 116 of 1998, Smt. Swarn Lata and Ors. v. Furkan and Ors.. As these appeals arise out against the same accident and facts are similar, therefore, both these are being decided by this common judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.1998 at about 10:30 a.m. on Muzaffarnagar-Haridwar-road, near Village Badheri, the deceased - Chaman Singh was going from Haridwar to Meerut by his own Maruti Car No. UMQ/9555 for performing the engagement ceremony of his daughter. A truck bearing registration No. UMU/4682 coming from Muzaffarnagar side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, collided with the said Maruti car. In this accident, the deceased sustained injures and succumbed to injuries. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of accident and working as a Senior Manager in BHEL, Ranipur. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 32,97,163.89 as compensation.
The notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their written statement before the Tribunal. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of truck in question) has alleged in the written statement that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car. It has also alleged that the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation, if any, lies upon the insurer of the vehicle in question. The Oriental Insurance Company contested the claim petition on the ground that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car and it has also pleaded that the driver of the car was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum vide judgment and award dated 18.07.2006.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants preferred appeal No. 630 of 2006 and appeal No. 527 of 2006 has been preferred by the insurer/the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the appellants/claimants, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondent No. 1/Insurance Company, and perused the record.
The Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 together as they are interconnected with each other. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. UMU/4682 vehicle is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the parties have not raised any submission on this point, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard.
As far as the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 4 has discussed this aspect of the matter, but the approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be erroneous. It appears from the evidence on record that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 23,371 (as per amended petition) per month. The deceased must have been investing 1/3rd portion of the monthly income on his own expenses. However, the Tribunal has assessed the annual pocket pay income of the deceased on the basis of the salary as Rs. 1,65,564/-. This calculation made by the Tribunal with regard to the annual financial dependency of the claimants does not require any interference. The Tribunal fell in error in ignoring this aspect that the deceased had been paying the income tax on his annual income. Paragraph 8 of the claim petition shows that the deceased had been paying income tax of Rs. 22,949/- per month. Therefore, this statutory deduction in the income tax is to be deducted from the total annual income of the deceased. After deducting this amount, the financial dependency of the claimants thus comes to Rs. 1,42,615/- per annum.
The age of the deceased as per claimants at the time of the death was 54 years, according to the age certificate filed on the record which indicate the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 54 years and 5 months, however, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 54 years for calculating the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has thus adopted the multiplier of ''8'' in this case, I think, that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal in the instant case appears to be absolutely justified. I do not intend to interfere on that aspect. After adopting the multiplier of ''8'', the amount of compensation thus comes to Rs. 11,40,920/- (14615 X 8). The amount of Rs. 5,488/- awarded by the Tribunal under other different heads does not require to be disturbed. After adding the above amount, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 11,46,408/- (rounded Rs. 11,46,400/-).
The Tribunal again fell in error in making an addition to the amount of earned leave and encashment of Rs. 70,000/- in the amount of compensation. I do not think, it would be just and proper to include this amount in the amount of compensation.
Learned Counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that this amount of encashment and earned leave is included in the income. He has cited a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Others, and invited my attention towards paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment.
Having gone through the judgment cited before me, I am of the view that this judgment does not indicate that the amount being received by the deceased against the encashment and earned leave would be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income in the amount of compensation payable for the death of the victim. I am of the view that this amount is not to be included in the amount of compensation. Thus, the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
As far as the rate of interest indicate in the impugned judgment and award is concerned, I am again of the view that the same is justified and does not require any interference.
For the reasons stated above, appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed and appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company is partly allowed.
With the aforesaid observations, the claimants/appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 11,46,400/- instead of Rs. 14,00,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal in appeal No. 527 of 2006 be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.
Let the copy of this judgment be placed in A.O. No. 527 of 2006.