07.2024 Pronounced on United India Insurance nsurance Co. Ltd v. Paramjit Kaur a & Ors.

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant The p Insurance resent appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company to challenge t challenge the award dated 06.0 passed by the learned 08.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, otor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar Jalandhar (in brevity, “the Tribunal the Tribunal”), 7,10,000 whereby compensation of Rs.7,10,000 7,10,000 whereby compensation of Rs. (round (round (round figure of actual figure of actual figure of actual compensation of Rs 7,09,750/-) has been compensation of Rs 7,09,750 has been awarded to the appellant e appellants/ claimants along with interest along with interest @ 7.5% per annum (or @ 10% per annum if % per annum (or @ 10% per annum if compensation is not paid by the appellant- compensation is not paid by the appellant Insurance Company within 45 - Insurance Company within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of award). days from the date of receipt of copy of award) days from the date of receipt of copy of award)

2. Respondent espondents No. 1-4/claimants being dependents of deceased, being dependents of deceased, Bakshish Ram, filed claim petition , filed claim petition u/s 163- of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) before the (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) Tribunal praying for grant of the Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- compensation to the tune of Rs. in the - on account of his death in the accident which took place on which took place on 12.11.2015. SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.25 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 1 FAO-935-2020 3. 20 (O&M) Learned Tribunal held that death of the Learned T occurred due death of the deceased occurred due to the accident accident and awarded compensation in the following manner awarded compensation in the following manner:- S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)

3. 4 Loss of dependency Rs.5,19,700/- Funeral expenses Loss of consortium Loss of Estate Total Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7,09,750 (rounded off Rs. 7,09,750 (rounded off to Rs 7,10,000/-)

4. Being aggrieved against the award dated Being ag , the grieved against the award dated 06.08.2019, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company Insurance Company. regarding accident and negligence Facts as specified in the claim petition regarding accident and negligence regarding accident and negligence Facts as specified in the claim petition are not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, are not in dispute, are not being for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company made Learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant submission on multiple grounds while impugning the award passed by the submission on multiple grounds while impugning the award passed by the submission on multiple grounds while impugning the award passed by the submission on multiple grounds while impugning the award passed by the

ld. Tribunal. Firstly, he submitted that this claim petition was not ld. Tribunal. Firstly, he submitted that this claim petition was not ld. Tribunal. Firstly, he submitted that this claim petition was not ld. Tribunal. Firstly, he submitted that this claim petition was not maintainable as during cross examination, the wife of the deceased maintainable as during cross examination, the wife of the deceased maintainable as during cross examination, the wife of the deceased maintainable as during cross examination, the wife of the deceased admitted that he was earning Rs 500/- daily admitted that he was earning Rs 500 and since his income was daily and since his income was A of more than Rs. 40,000 per annum, the claim petition under section 163-A of more than Rs. 40,000 per annum, the claim petition under section 163 more than Rs. 40,000 per annum, the claim petition under section 163 the Act could not have been entertained In support of his contentions, he In support of his contentions, h could not have been entertained. In support of his contentions, h placed reliance upon the following judgments: placed reliance upon the following judgments: placed reliance upon the following judgments: i. Company V. Prem Devi “Cholamandhlam MS General Insurance Company V. Prem Devi “Cholamandhlam MS General Insurance “Cholamandhlam MS General Insurance FAO 3329 of 2016, decided on and Ors.”, bearing case no FAO 3329 of 2016, decided on FAO 3329 of 2016, decided on and Ors.

08.07.2019; 08.07.2019; ii. FAO 274 Israr V. Jakhar @ Jakhar Ali and Anr.”, bearing case no FAO 274 “Israr V. Jakhar @ Jakhar Ali and Anr. Israr V. Jakhar @ Jakhar Ali and Anr. of 2019, decided on 16.01.2019; of 2019, decided on 16.01.2019; SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.25 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 FAO-935-2020 5.1 20 (O&M) even if this court comes to the Secondly, he contended that even if this court comes to the even if this court comes to the Secondly, he contended that conclusion that the claim petition was maintainable, conclusion that the cl ld. Tribunal failed to aim petition was maintainable, ld. Tribunal failed to Second Schedule of the Act assess the compensation in accordance with Second Schedule of the Act assess the compensation in accordance with assess the compensation in accordance with excessive compensation. Delving further into this argument, and granted excessive compensation. Delving further into this argument, excessive compensation. Delving further into this argument, excessive compensation. Delving further into this argument, learned Counsel submitted learned Counsel submitted learned Counsel submitted etermining compensation that while determining compensation that while d that while d , future prospects are not to be awarded accordance with Second Schedule, future prospects are not to be awarded , future prospects are not to be awarded accordance with and reduction should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4. He further submitted and reduction should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4. He further submitted and reduction should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4. He further submitted and reduction should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4. He further submitted that compensation assessed under conventional heads is Rs 1,90,000/- that compensation assessed under conventional heads is Rs 1,90,000 that compensation assessed under conventional heads is Rs 1,90,000 that compensation assessed under conventional heads is Rs 1,90,000 while it should have been Rs. 90,000 only. In support of his contentions, he d have been Rs. 90,000 only. In support of his contentions, he In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following judgements: placed reliance upon the following judgements: placed reliance upon the following judgements: i. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sukhveer Kaur and Ors.”, “The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sukhveer Kaur and Ors. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sukhveer Kaur and Ors. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sukhveer Kaur and Ors. FAO 6121 of 2016, decided on 10.05.2019; bearing case no FAO 6121 of 2016, decided on 10.05.2019; bearing case no ii. “Aryan and Ors. V. Kanti Aryan and Ors. V. Kanti Lal and Ors. FAO 5184 Lal and Ors.”, bearing case no FAO 5184 of 2014, decided on 20.11.2018. of 2014, decided on 20.11.2018.

5.2 Lastly, he submitted that penal interest rate of 10% has been Lastly, he submitted that penal interest rate of 10% has been Lastly, he submitted that penal interest rate of 10% has been Lastly, he submitted that penal interest rate of 10% has been awarded if appellants could not pay the compensation within 45 days, awarded if appellants could not pay the compensation within 45 days, awarded if appellants could not pay the compensation within 45 days, awarded if appellants could not pay the compensation within 45 days, ent of Hon’ble Apex Court which is not permissible in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court which is not permissible in view of the judgem which is not permissible in view of the judgem in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Keshav Bahadur and others” National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others” Keshav Bahadur and others” reported as 2004(2) RCR Civil 99 2004(2) RCR Civil 99.

5.3 In addition to the above cited judgments, Learned counsel for In addition to the above cited judgments, Learned counsel for In addition to the above cited judgments, Learned counsel for In addition to the above cited judgments, Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company Insurance Company also placed reliance upon the following also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:- judgments in support of his contentions: i. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Rupinder Kaur and Ors.”, “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Rupinder Kaur and Ors. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Rupinder Kaur and Ors. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Rupinder Kaur and Ors. FAO 6838 of 2010, decided on 04.02.2014; bearing case no FAO 6838 of 2010, decided on 04.02.2014; bearing case no ii. bearing National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur and Ors.”, bearing “National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur and Ors. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur and Ors. case no FAO 5949 of 2002, decided on 11.05.2006; FAO 5949 of 2002, decided on 11.05.2006; iii. bearing case no Salochana and Anr. V. Krishan Lal and Anr.”, bearing case no “Salochana and Anr. V. Krishan Lal and Anr. Salochana and Anr. V. Krishan Lal and Anr. FAO 6406 of 2013, decided on 11.04.2014; FAO 6406 of 2013, decided on 11.04.2014; FAO 6406 of 2013, decided on 11.04.2014; SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.25 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 FAO-935-2020 20 (O&M) iv. FAO Mohit Garg and Anr. V. Afrojan and Ors.”, bearing case no FAO “Mohit Garg and Anr. V. Afrojan and Ors. Mohit Garg and Anr. V. Afrojan and Ors. 3460 of 2004, decided on 15.05.2014; 3460 of 2004, decided on 15.05.2014; v. “Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Or s. V. United India Insurance Co. Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. V. United India Insurance Co. s. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.”, bearing case no C.A. 3126 of 2002, decided on 18.03.2004; bearing case no C.A. 3126 of 2002, decided on 18.03.2004;

6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents No 1-4 On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent 4 - claimants contended that ld. Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the contended that ld. Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the ld. Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the 300 per month and thus annual income of the deceased deceased as Rs. 3,300 per month and thus annual income of the deceased 300 per month and thus annual income of the deceased deceased as Rs. 3 comes out to be Rs 39,600 and accordingly, the claim petition was comes out to be Rs 39,600 and accordingly, the claim petition was comes out to be Rs 39,600 and accordingly, the claim petition was comes out to be Rs 39,600 and accordingly, the claim petition was maintainable. He further contended that in accordance with Second He further contended that in accordance with Second , multiplier used should have been 15 in place of 14. With respect , multiplier used should have been 15 in place of 14. Schedule, multiplier used should have been 15 in place of 14. to compensation under the conventional heads, he submitted that to compensation under the conventional heads, he submitted that to compensation under the conventional heads, he submitted that to compensation under the conventional heads, he submitted that to be same whether the claim compensation under these heads was to be same whether the claim to be same whether the claim compensation under these heads A and therefore, filed under section 166 of the Act or u/s 163-A and therefore, filed under section 166 of the Act or u/s 163 petition was filed under section 166 of the Act or u/s 163 compensation under conventional heads w compensation under conventional heads tly granted by the ld. was rightly granted by the ld. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the Tribunal. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:- following judgments: i. Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali V. Shyam Kishore Murmu” “Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali V. Shyam Kishore Murmu Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali V. Shyam Kishore Murmu Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali V. Shyam Kishore Murmu