AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award
dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Suratgarh (''the Tribunal''), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs. 23,70,320/- to the claimants on account of death of
one Vinod Kumar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
though the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company
is covered by judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors .:
Civil Appeal No.5826/2011, decided on 3.7.2017, the multiplier
applied by the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on
record, inasmuch as, the age of the deceased in the application
has been indicated at 36 years, from the driving licence of the
deceased, which is available on record, his age comes to 38 years,
the Tribunal by taking the age of the deceased at 32 years has
applied multiplier of 16, which deserves to be rectified.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
Tribunal was justified in taking the age of the deceased at 32
years on account of the postmortem report and the award to that
extent does not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
In so far as the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company
is concerned, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company, the issue is covered by judgment of Hon''ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and
further so far as the involvement of the Tractor and Trolley is
concerned, the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra)
has been followed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant
Lal vs. Rajesh & Ors . : Civil Appeal No.8395-96/2017, wherein, it
has been held that Tractor attached with Trolley is also a ''Light
Motor Vehicle''.
In view thereof, to the extent of liability of the appellant-
Insurance Company, no interference in the award impugned is
called for.
So far as the submissions regarding applicability of multiplier
is concerned, the claimants indicated the age of the deceased at
36 years in the claim petition, apparently no material was
produced to support the said age, however, in the driving licence
of the deceased, which was available on record, the date of birth
of the deceased has been indicated as 24.08.1970 and as the
accident took place on 09.05.2009, the deceased in fact was aged
38 years.
In view thereof, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the
postmortem report, wherein the age of the deceased has been
indicated as 32 years cannot be sustained.
Applying the multiplier as indicated by Hon''ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation :
(2009) 6 SCC 121 for age group 35 to 40 years i.e. 15, the
claimants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,
04,987.50 P. towards loss of income and after adding the amount
of non-pecuniary loss as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants
would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 22,29,987/-, which is rounded-off to Rs.22,30,000/- and to that extent, the
award deserves to be modified.
In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company is partly allowed. The award impugned is
modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a
sum of Rs.22,30,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.23,70,320/-
as awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest as awarded by the
Tribunal.