AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No. 313/2007, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant/Insurance Company has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
MCP No. 313/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant is heard on admission.
This is insurer''s appeal against the award dated 18.10.2006, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (for short, ''the Tribunal'') in motor accident claim case No.68/2005.
Respondents No.1 to 6, the unfortunate widow and children of deceased Moti Lal Gond claimed compensation of Rs. 18,50,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for his death in the motor accident on 15.6.2005, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG-10-A-7866 resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself.
The claimants pleaded that deceased Moti Lal Gond used to earn Rs. 250/- per day and Rs. 7,500/- per month by selling vegetables.
The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Moti Lal Gond died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 90/- per day and Rs. 2,700/- per month and Rs. 32,400/- per annum. By deducting 1 /4th of Rs. 32,400/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,300/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,300/- with the multiplier 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,15,900/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 28,000/-under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,43,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only l/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as against the usual deduction of l/3rd in that behalf.
The appellant/Insurance Company has taken following grounds in this appeal:
A. Because the award is contrary to facts, evidence and law.
B. Because the permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been obtained.
C. Because the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deductedl/ 4th of the amount from the annual income instead of deducting 1/ 3rd as Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, provided for the same.
D. Because the award is excessive and liable to be set aside.
From the above mentioned submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the above quoted grounds of the appeal, it is apparent that the sole ground pressed into service in this appeal by the insurer is in regard to the deduction of the l/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of the usual deduction of 1/3rd.
It is not in dispute that as many as six claimants were dependant on the income of the deceased Moti Lal Gond. The claimants are widow and five children of deceased Moti Lal Gond.
The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, while considering the permissible extent of deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased observed in para 30 as under:
Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/ 4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
Now, reverting to the present case, as there were six dependants on the income of the deceased Moti Lal Gond, the deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses by the Tribunal is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport (supra).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for interference in the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal.
The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.
Consequently, MCP No. 312/2007 also stands dismissed.