Moharram Ali & Ors. v. Narendra Singh & Anr.

Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued only on the point of quantum and has submitted that the Tribunal has committed mistake while deciding the petition. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the claim petition, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/- but the Tribunal considered notional income of Rs. 2,500/- per month. He has further submitted that in order to prove his income, the claimants have produced paper No. 24C/2 but the Tribunal did not consider the same in evidence properly in order to asses the monthly income of the deceased.

Perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the Tribunal found that the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not consistent. Therefore, the Tribunal in order to calculate the income of the 3 deceased considered notional income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/-. The view adopted by the Tribunal appears to be quite unjustified. The Division Bench of this Court on 01.11.2006 in Appeal No. 02 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- due to price hike. Hence, in this case the suitable amount of notional income shall be taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

As far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of (cid:145)10(cid:146) in order to calculate the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has conceded to this aspect that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal appears to be absolutely justified.

Under these circumstances, I don(cid:146)t have any other option to take other view except that the multiplier of (cid:145)10(cid:146) adopted by the Tribunal is justified. As notice earlier in the absence of any evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased as well as in view of the judgment given by this Court, the notional income, keeping in view the price hike should be considered to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum where the cogent and reliable evidence establishing the income of the deceased has not been adduced. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of (cid:145)10(cid:146) which appears to be quite reasonable. 4

On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (24000 X 10). The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is not to be disturbed. Thus, in view of the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,55,000/-.

Consequently, the cross appeal filed by Insurance Company is dismissed.

01.10.2008 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)