National Insurance Company Ltd. Khagaria Branch v. Chalo Devi

Patna High Court MA No.444 of 2012 (7) dt.12-11-2013 This Court had accepted the arguments of the Insurance Company to modify the award based upon the submission aforementioned. However, at the stage of finalisation of the draft a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 (Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) came to the notice of this Court rendered in a case of a bachelor and according whereto it is not the age of the parent but the age of the deceased which would be determining factor for fixation of a multiplier. Since the acceptance of the submission of the appellant counsel, in so far as the issue of determination of multiplier is concerned, was in conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra), this Court deemed it fit and proper to hear the counsel(s) afresh on the issue of determination of multiplier and it is in this background that this matter has been listed under the heading ‘To be Mentioned’ and is being considered afresh with a view to its final disposal. I have heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Madan Mohan learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent. Re: I.A. No. 4965 of 2013 This interlocutory application has been 3 Patna High Court MA No.444 of 2012 (7) dt.12-11-2013 condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, the prayer is allowed, The delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands allowed. Re:M. A. No. 444 of 2012 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is directed against judgment and award dated

3.3.2012/20.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal-I, Naugachia in Claim Case No. 109 of 2009, TR No. 36 of 2011 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim set up by the claimants and has required the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3,43,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the case until its realization. The Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court. Since the appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the award on its quantum and not on the liability, hence this Court does not deem it necessary to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.2. The claimant-respondent No.1 has already entered 4 Patna High Court MA No.444 of 2012 (7) dt.12-11-2013 appearance through Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the award on two grounds; (a) Since the deceased was a bachelor, hence in view of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 more particularly paragraph 24, the deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased should have been 50% and not 1/3.

(b) Since the deceased was a bachelor and the claimant is the mother, hence following the judgment of Trilok Chandra reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 more particularly paragraph 18 thereof, the age of the parents would be the relevant factor for determination of the multiplier and not the deceased as having been adopted by the Tribunal. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikram that since the mother i.e. respondent No.1 is aged 56 years, hence following the principles settled under the judgment of Sarla Verma(supra) in paragraph 42, the correct multiplier would be 9 and not 16 as determined by the Tribunal. Mr. Madan Mohan has relied upon the judgment of the 5 Patna High Court MA No.444 of 2012 (7) dt.12-11-2013 Supreme Court rendered in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) to contest the issue of multiplier as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and to submit that in the case of determination of compensation relatable to a deceased bachelor, the multiplier would be determined on the basis of the age of the deceased bachelor and not the parents.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the contesting parties. Of the two issues raised by the appellant to question the award namely, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased to the extent of 50% and the issue of fixation of multiplier, although the appellant-Insurance Company has made out a case for modification on the issue of dedications towards personal and living expenses in view of the principle settled in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) but in so far as the contention raised to question the award on the issue of multiplier is concerned, the same has to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra). In the circumstances set forth, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the following extent. 6 Patna High Court MA No.444 of 2012 (7) dt.12-11-2013 The monthly annual income of the deceased was determined by the Tribunal at Rs.

3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36000/- per annum. Following the judgment of Sarla Verma, 50% of the annual income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, meaning thereby the contribution towards family would be Rs. 36000-18000/-= Rs. 18000/- Applying the multiplier of 16 as determined by the Tribunal, the compensation amount payable would be Rs. 18000 x 16 = Rs. 2,88,000/-. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. 2000/- by way of funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Thus total compensation amount payable claimants would be Rs. 2,88,000+9,500/-= Rs. 2,97,500/-. Since a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the claimants by way of interim compensation, the balance compensation amount payable to the claimant would be Rs. 2,47,500/- which should be paid to the claimant with interest as determined by the Tribunal i.e.

6% calculated from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 1.1.2009 until its realization. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stands 7 Patna High Court MA No.444 of 2012 (7) dt.12-11-2013 modified to the aforementioned extent. This appeal is allowed. Let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant be remitted to the Court of Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-I, Naugachia for its disbursement in accordance with law. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)