AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—This Appeal is for reduction of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) in respect of the accident which took place on 04.05.2003 wherein the deceased Mukhtiyar Singh who was aged about 31 years and was allegedly a TSR driver by profession lost his life.
In the absence of any evidence regarding the deceased�s income, the Tribunal assumed the minimum wages i.e. Rs. 3207/-as deceased�s monthly income; added 50% towards future prospects; deducted one-third towards personal expenses; applied the multiplier of 17 and computed loss of dependency as Rs. 6,54,288/-.
The impugned award is challenged on the grounds:-
(i) Future prospects should not have been awarded as the deceased did not have any permanent job.
(ii) Compensation on account of loss of love and affection should not have been granted.
(iii) Multiplier of 16 was applicable as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , instead 17 taken by the Tribunal.
(iv) It was proved by the Appellant Insurance Company that the driving licence was fake resulting into breach in the terms of the policy, still no recovery rights were granted by the Tribunal.
POINTS (i), (ii), & (iii)
The Trial Court while granting 50% increase towards future prospects observed as under:
Even a minimum wager has a future prospects of advancement which is clear from the fact that minimum wages are being revised every year by the Government. Minimum wages of an unskilled labourer were Rs. 240/- pm on 1.1.1980 while the minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs. 3044/- pm as on 1.2.2005. It is a matter of experience that DA is being revised every year twice by the government, hence, pension and salary of government servant increases every year twice.
Normal span of life in this part of country is 70 years. Thus deceased had a long span of life of about 39 years yet to live had he not died in this accident.
No documentary evidence with regard to earnings of deceased has been produced by the petitioners, hence this court is assessing the earnings of deceased as per Minimum Wages Act. Driver is a skilled labour, hence this court is adopting the minimum wages of a skilled labour to assess the earnings of deceased in this case.
In the case of (i) Sh. Narinder Bishal and Another Vs. Sh. Rambir Singh and Others, , (ii) UPSRTC v. Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879; and (iii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi and Others, , this Court granted addition of 50% of minimum wages to offset inflation. The minimum wages are increased not only to offset inflation but also to provide better standard of living to the lowest paid workers. While increasing minimum wages various factors i.e. increase in inflation growth in GDP etc. are taken into consideration. Thus, 50% addition in the minimum wages towards indexation on account of increase in minimum wages cannot be faulted.
As per Sarla Verma (supra) appropriate multiplier is 16 at the age of 31. The Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 17.
As far as the award of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection is concerned, the trend of the High Courts is to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of love and affection ( Bedo Devi and Others Vs. Jagat Singh and Others, ; and Meera and Another Vs. Sarabjeet Singh and Another, ).
Thus, the award cannot be faulted for grant of 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
The Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of estate. If a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, the compensation comes to Rs. 6,55,744/- instead of Rs. 6,84,300/-awarded by the Tribunal.
The compensation awarded is thus liable to be reduced to Rs. 6,55,744/-.
POINT (iv)
As far as breach of condition of policy is concerned, Respondent No. 4 Arvind Kumar driver did state that he obtained a licence through a tout in Jaunpur and that he was a resident of Azamgarh. Obtaining help of a middleman and grant of a licence by a Transport Authority from a place outside the residence of the driver by itself would not make the driving licence invalid. The onus was on the Insurance Company to establish that the driving licence was fake. Though, a letter dated 22.01.2007 purported to be written by the Transport Authority was sent to the Tribunal to the effect that the driving licence number A5635 was issued in the name of one Ashok Kumar Misra yet the letter was not proved and tested by cross-examination. The evidence was closed by the Insurance Company on 31.1.2007. The Appellant Insurance Company failed to establish that the driving licence held by the driver was fake. ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, ).
The Insurance Company having failed to discharge the onus, the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any recovery right against the owner of the vehicle.
The Appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded is reduced to Rs. 6,55,744/-. No costs.