The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Shifali Sharma & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advocate Present: Mr. Jatin Kumar, Insurance Company. for the appellant-Insurance Company. for the appellant Mr. I.S. Kooner, Advocate, Mr. I.S. Kooner, for the caveator. *** *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Insurance The present appeal has been filed by the appellant–Insurance The present appeal has been filed by the appellant The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2- learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a motor vehicular accident on 18.05.2024, has been allowed. Nos. 1 and 2 in a motor vehicular accident on 18.05.2024, ha Nos. 1 and 2 in a motor vehicular accident on 18.05.2024, ha

2. Learned counsel for the appellant– Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the –insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the along with impugned award, whereby an excessive compensation of ₹20,33,491/- along with impugned award, whereby an excessive compensation of impugned award, whereby an excessive compensation of interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of death of a 10-year interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of death of a 10 interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of death of a 10 year-old child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. -1- FAO-2030-2026 2026 (O&M) Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notion Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notion Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notion per month and income of the deceased as that of a skilled worker at ₹12,576/- per month and income of the deceased as that of a skilled worker at income of the deceased as that of a skilled worker at further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. rgued that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality Furthermore, it is argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality rgued that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality Furthermore, it is a in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands ntly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also ignored vitiated. Subsequently, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also ignored ntly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also ignored vitiated. Subseque the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the bmitted that both on the aspect of multiplier as well as present case. Lastly, it is submitted that both on the aspect of multiplier as well as bmitted that both on the aspect of multiplier as well as present case. Lastly, it is su notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and Reshma therefore deserves to be reduced accordingly. Reliance has been placed on Reshma therefore deserves to be reduced accordingly. Reliance has been placed on therefore deserves to be reduced accordingly. Reliance has been placed on National Insurance Kumari v. Madan Mohan AIR 2013 SC (SUPP) 474, National Insurance Kumari v. Madan Mohan AIR 2013 SC (SUPP Kumari v. Madan Mohan AIR 2013 SC (SUPP