AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 6361 of 2018
The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring the appeal.
Perused the I.A., reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application is accepted.
In view of the reason mentioned in the I.A., the delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
I.A. No. 6361 of 2018 stands allowed.
M.A. No. 418 of 2017
The appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 28.03.2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 15/08 by learned District Judge, V-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar whereby the claim application of the claimants namely Dropadi Debya, Ajay Kumar Verma and Bhudeo Verma have been allowed, directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 5,94,000/- in total. The learned Tribunal has deducted Rs. 50,000/- which has already been paid to the claimants under section 140 of the M.V. Act as interim compensation. Thus, the Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 544000/- with simple interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition.
Out of the aforesaid total compensation amount, Ajay Kumar Verma and Bhudeo Verma shall be given Rs. 1,00,000/- each and Dropadi Debya (widow) shall be given Rs. 3,44,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned award is bad in law as F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown vehicle and as per the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 CrPC in the police case which was registered as Mohanpur (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 62/08, the deceased was sitting on the roof of the vehicle, as such, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated the loss of consortium as Rs. 1,00,000/-, funeral expenses as Rs. 25,000/- and loss of estate as Rs. 10,000/- i.e. total Rs. 1,35,000/- which can only be Rs. 70,000/- in totality and the multiplier has been wrongly used as 17 which should have been 16 in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para-40 relying upon Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, para-42 of which, is profitably quoted hereunder:
"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M- 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
On the aforementioned ground this Court may interfere in the impugned award.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that accident took place on 07.04.2008 while the deceased was travelling in tracker No. BR 40 - 6795 which met with an accident and died. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted, that during investigation, the police has found the complicity of the tracker No. BR 40 - 6795 and accordingly the driver of the vehicle has been charge-sheeted. In the said criminal trial, the driver has been convicted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the claim Tribunal has not taken notice with regard to the compensation to be awarded under the heading 'future prospect' and as such, if the excess amount paid under the head loss of consortium is reduced then, this Court may add the future prospect while passing the judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that one of the witnesses examined by the police under section 161 CrPC namely Wakil Prasad Verma has been examined in the Claim case before the Tribunal and he has not stated that deceased was travelling on the roof of the vehicle, as such, the appeal may be dismissed as claimants are the sufferers, whose bread earner has died on 07.04.2008.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that I.A. No. 26/2019 has been filed for vacating the stay in Execution case No. 18/17, as the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-pursuant to the order dated 02.11.2018 passed in I.A. No. 5964/18 by this Court and as such, the same may be vacated and the learned Tribunal may be directed to release the same in favour of the claimants. The appeal may be dismissed directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. From perusal of the same, it appears that so far the involvement of the vehicle i.e. Tracker No. BR 40 6795 is concerned, it was insured before the appellant for the date of alleged occurrence vide policy no. 210304/31/07/01/00004472 and the driver has already been convicted by the learned trial court. The Criminal court has already found the involvement of the alleged tracker in commission of the offence. The Insurance Company has never intervened in such criminal case by challenging the involvement of the vehicle. From perusal of the record, it appears that such pleas are being taken by the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim, though the involvement of the vehicle has been ascertained and accordingly the driver of the vehicle has been convicted by the learned Tribunal. So far the calculation are concerned, while adjudicating the just and fair compensation, from perusal of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), it appears that the court below has wrongly granted Rs. 1,35,000/- in total under the heading 'loss of consortium' as Rs. 1,00,000/-, 'funeral expenses' as Rs. 25,000/- and 'loss of estate' as Rs. 10000/-, total Rs. 1,35,000/- which cannot be more than Rs. 70,000/- but learned tribunal has not considered future prospect and the learned tribunal has taken multiplier of 17 which ought to have been 16 as the deceased was in the age group of 31 to 35 years. The Tribunal has also not considered the income of the deceased rightly in view of judgment of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, para 21 of which is being profitably quoted hereunder:
"21. In Susamma Thomas this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs. 1032 per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs. 2000 as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses."
The multiplier of the age group of 31 to 35 is 16 but from perusal of the impugned award, it appears that future prospect in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), has not been calculated by the court below, which is 40% of the annual income for the person who was self-employed or on fixed salary.
From perusal of the same, it appears that if such calculations are interfered, minor changes may occur; for fair and reasonable compensation and in the interest of justice for an accident which took place on 07.04.2008. The matter is lingering since 2008 till July, 2019 (approximately 11 years), if such things are interfered, this may again give rise to a new litigation, as such, without interfering with the same, looking into the award, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned award, which is just, fair and reasonable compensation. The same has also not been assailed by the claimants.
Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,44,000/-from the date of application till date of payment with simple interest @ 6% out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has already been deposited before the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 18/17 pending before the court of Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar but calculation of simple interest shall also be done on the same. The cheque deposited before the Executing Court shall be handed over to the Insurance Company for re-validation/fresh issuance along with interest within a period of 30 days as prescribed under section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
The Registrar General of this Court is directed to transfer the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of preferring the present appeal to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar at once in the name of the claimant Dropadi Debya and on behalf of her sons namely Ajay Kumar Verma and Bhudeo Verma.
I.A. No. 26/2019 for vacating the stay has become infructuous, as appeal has already been dismissed.
As such, I.A. No. 26/2019 is dismissed as infructuous.