NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SEWA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the findings of the Tribunal mainly on two grounds, firstly the wrong multiplier has been made applicable in the case of the deceased, who was 50 years of age at the time of accident and secondly that the Tribunal has wrongly mentioned the age of the deceased as 38 years in para 12 of the impugned Award. Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that as per the election identity card filed on record age of the deceased was duly shown as 50 years and not 38 years. Counsel also contends that correct multiplier as specified in schedule II relevant to the age of the deceased was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

(2.) Per contra Mr. Prashar, counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contends that although in para 12 of the Award age of the deceased has been mentioned as 38 years, but the same appears to be due to some error on the part of the Tribunal, which is manifest from the fact that in the operating para of the judgment the correct age of the deceased i.e. 50 years has been taken into consideration. Counsel also contends that between the age of 45-50 years the multiplier as specified in the second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is 13 years and, therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality on the part of the Tribunal in taking into account the multiplier of the 13 years for the age of 50 years. Counsel for the respondent also challenges the very maintainability of the present appeal and submits that the appellant has even no right to file an appeal so as to challenge either the negligence or the quantum as determined by the Court. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 7 SCC 456 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. He has referred to paras 13, 19 and 32 of the said judgment, which are reproduced below:

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the records including the impugned Award. There is a total fallacy on the part of the appellant in saying that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 38 years. Perusal of the Award clearly shows that in para 13 of the impugned Award the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 50 years and accordingly made the multiplier of 13 years applicable. It appears that in para 12 of the impugned order due to some error reference has been made to the age of the deceased as 38 years at the time of his death. The mention of 38 years of the age in the preceding paragraph of the impugned order can be easily ignored.