Vimla Devi & Anr. vs National Insurance Company & Ors.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the award dated 01.02.2025, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.44 of 2022, Smt. Vimla Devi and another Vs. National Insurance company and others (“the claim petition”) by the MACT/Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. By it, the claim petition filed by the appellants /claimants has been allowed and they have been awarded compensation of Rs.5,40,580/- alongwith interest @ 9%.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The appellants did file a claim petition under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the death of Shri Avtar Singh Negi in a motor accident. According to the claim petition, on 19.07.2022 at 01:10 in the afternoon, the deceased was walking towards Devi Road, Kotdwar, when a Scooty bearing Registration No. 15 B-6640 being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries, to which he later succumbed. The deceased was 76 years of age at the time of his death. He was getting pension of Rs.31,289/- per month.

Parties filed their objections in the claim petition. Four issues were framed. The parties led evidence in support of their claim. By the impugned judgment and award, the claim petition was allowed and respondent no.1 was directed to pay Rs. 5,40,580/- . Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the appellants/claimants are in appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident took place on 19.07.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that on conventional heads, the amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the amount ought to have been increased by 10% as decided in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

It is also argued that the pension of the deceased was Rs.31,289/- per month and from this amount, the family pension has been deducted, which is not permissible in view of the judgment of this Court dated 03.09.2026, passed in Appeal From Order No. 159 of 2023, Shriram General Insurance Company Vs. Maya Thapa and Others and accordingly, an error was made in the calculation. In addition to it, it is also argued that while computing the compensation, the Court deducted 1/3^rd of the amount on the personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier was applied on that 1/3rd amount, whereas it ought to have been on the remaining 2/3rd amount. Accordingly, the computation has to be made.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the deceased was 77 years of age at the time of incident and according to the judgment in case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, for every three years, the multiplier would be reduced by two years. Therefore, for 77 years, it would be 3. He would refer to para 42 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 42 observed as follows:-

A bare perusal of the above finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly reveals that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that after multiplier of 13 it should be reduced by two units for every five years and accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went up to the multiplier-5, but it has not been further decreased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stated that beyond it also, the multiplier would be reduced by two units for every five years. Therefore, the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the respondent no.1 has less force for acceptance.

In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 59.8 observed that under the conventional heads, the amount should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. The conventional heads are of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It has not been so computed. In fact, the computation has been done in the impugned judgment as below:-

The calculation reveals that, in fact, the multiplier was applied on the amount that was calculated as personal expenses of the deceased, which is wrong. It should have been fixed on the remaining 2/3^rd amount to which the claimants were entitled to. Therefore, this Court holds that on admitted pension of the deceased is Rs. 31,289/-. The computation shall be done on Rs.31,289/-. On conventional heads, 10% amount has to be increased and the amount of family pension should not be reduced.

Accordingly, the computation would be as follows:-

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled to Rs.14,97,560/- as compensation. The respondent no.1 shall pay it to the appellants. The appellants shall be entitled to interest, as awarded by the Tribunal and the amount shall be given to the appellants in the proportion, in which the Tribunal has granted it to them.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.