AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.
C.M. Appl. No. 2635 of 2009:
This petition is to condone the delay of 36 days in filing an appeal. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
The Insurance Company is the Appellant. The deceased claimant had staked the claim for compensation for personal in juries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 24.07.2005. After the claim was filed the claimant expired. He allegedly succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. His legal heirs continued the claim for compensation. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of a total amount of Rs. 4,84,500/- as compensation as per the details shown below:
1.
Transport to hospital
: Rs. 10,000/-
2.
Extra nourishments
: Rs. 5,000/-
3.
Damage to clothing
: Rs. 250/-
4.
Medical bills (Ext.A13+A20)
: Rs. 72,249/-
5.
Bystanders expenses(20x150)
: Rs. 3,000/-
6.
Bystanders expenses while
the petitioner was bed-ridden
in his house.
: Rs. 40,000/-
7.
Pain and suffering
: Rs. 30,000/-
8.
Loss of consortium
: Rs. 10,000/-
9.
Loss of love and affection
of 9th and 10th petitioners.
: Rs. 10,000/-
10.
Loss of earnings(2000X20)
: Rs. 40,000/-
11.
Compensation to words loss
of dependency
: Rs. 2,64,000/-
Total
Rs.4,84,499/-
Rounded to
Rs.4,84,500/-
The Appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned Counsel for the Appellant, called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the Appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, raises challenge only against the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings. An amount of Rs. 40,000/-allegedly representing the actual deprivation of earnings on account of involuntary unemployment till the date of death (20x2000) was awarded as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the observations in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Hariprasad, (2005 (4) KLT 977 (F.B)) attempts to build up an argument that where compensation is calculated and granted for loss of dependency further direction to pay compensation under the head of loss of earnings is not justified. That is the only plank of challenge.
We have considered the contention in detail. This is a peculiar case where the victim suffered the accident. While he was undergoing treatment, he preferred the claim. He succumbed to the injuries after lodging the claim. For 20 months after the accident, he lived and was treated. It is after 20 months that he succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal calculated on actuals and found that the deceased had suffered loss of earnings for a period of 20 months and reckoned Rs. 40,000/- as the actual earnings which the deceased was deprived of.
The Tribunal was obliged to calculate the quantum of compensation payable as on the date of death adopting the multiplier- multiplicand method. Facts of this case are peculiar in that there was a long intervening period between the accident and death. We are unable to accept the arguments that the actual loss suffered on account of deprivation of earnings by way of involuntary unemployment should not be taken into reckoning while awarding compensation for death which ensued subsequently. Award of compensation under the head of loss of earnings is for the actual loss suffered where as compensation for loss of dependency by adoption of the multiplier-multiplicand method is the compensation for possible future loss. When the actual loss has been ascertained, the possible future loss can be only in addition to the actual loss. So reckoned we are unable to find anything faulty in the approach made by the Tribunal. We cross checked and it was confirmed that the multiplier has been adopted as 11 taking into account the age of the deceased at the date of his death. On that score also there is no room for grievance for the Appellant.
No other contentions are raised. We are satisfied, in these circumstances that this appeal is without merit.
This appeal is consequently dismissed.